D&D 5E [L&L] Campaigns in D&D Next

[Sadras]

I can agree with you here and am a bit worried by the fact that we haven't seen anything like a "3esque uber-customization" module, or a "4esque AEDU tactical combat" module. Like you said, the glorified modular approach and complexity dial that was discussed early on may be morphing into "we're going to provide a lot of optional rules." That's fine with me, especially if the core game is simple enough.

I'm not that worried. As I have mentioned in another thread the AEDU is actually right in front of our eyes.
Spells, class abilities/features, myriad combat options, effects, cover rules and movement are all there - all we need now are terrain/weather effects and you have a 4esque combat grid system.
Fair enough, they don't have an identifiable paragraph in the playtest addressing this and a characters actions are not presented in 4e style but its definitely there.

As for 3e uber-customization, I'm thinking they might go mini-feats or +1 ability improvement for a more granular customization, its the simplest solution, and they then there is the possibility of melding/swapping class features on a 5e-character builder.
Furthermore more options should become available for use through supplements, allowing the character-customization lovers to get on board.

The only other thing i would think they would need to focus on as an extra module is a grittier setting which they can discuss/introduce through a simple wounds system, capping hit points, multiple use of Hit Dice (if we treat it like character reserves)...etc

 

[Zardnaar]

I think the reason the designers trash the previous edition is that the people whoo designed 3rd ed were gone when 4E launched and the current D&DN designers were not the ones driving the bus during 4E. They were on it but were not the main designers.

 

[Mercurius]

I'm not that worried. As I have mentioned in another thread the AEDU is actually right in front of our eyes.
Spells, class abilities/features, myriad combat options, effects, cover rules and movement are all there - all we need now are terrain/weather effects and you have a 4esque combat grid system.
Fair enough, they don't have an identifiable paragraph in the playtest addressing this and a characters actions are not presented in 4e style but its definitely there.

As for 3e uber-customization, I'm thinking they might go mini-feats or +1 ability improvement for a more granular customization, its the simplest solution, and they then there is the possibility of melding/swapping class features on a 5e-character builder.
Furthermore more options should become available for use through supplements, allowing the character-customization lovers to get on board.

The only other thing i would think they would need to focus on as an extra module is a grittier setting which they can discuss/introduce through a simple wounds system, capping hit points, multiple use of Hit Dice (if we treat it like character reserves)...etc

Sounds good. The good thing about a relatively simply core--and that is the key, imo--is that it allows for most everything to be modular options. It goes back to the old school approach of following the basic rules of the game, then picking and choosing some of the details, like encumbrance, spell components, etc.

I think the reason the designers trash the previous edition is that the people whoo designed 3rd ed were gone when 4E launched and the current D&DN designers were not the ones driving the bus during 4E. They were on it but were not the main designers.

Again, I don't see Mearls "trashing" the previous edition. All I've seen is him critiquing some of the weak points of 4E and incorporating that into 5E design; at worst he may be milding sniping at some 4Eisms, but "trashing" is hyperbole.

 

[DEFCON 1]

I find it amazing how one comment by James Wyatt one time where he stated that just skipping an exchange with some random guard to get to the "good stuff" of the next plot point in your story has somehow evolved into the entire design team denigrating 3rd edition.

 

[Mistwell]

You don't have to bash your own previous work in order to be seen as positive about your current stuff.

Apparently, this lesson was not learned from the 4th edition era where the devs really took the piss out of 3rd edition.

I don't think they are bashing 4e. It's the very rare comment that anyone even picks up on, and even those most people seem to disagree with the minority that views it as a bash.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I don't think they are bashing 4e. It's the very rare comment that anyone even picks up on, and even those most people seem to disagree with the minority that views it as a bash.

well in this day and age this seems silly easy to check, we all have google, and everything the developers say is searchable...

so if someone wants to support an argument that they bashed a previous edition just provide a number of links...



from my point of view the turn to 4e had a few jokes about 3e, and a few rationales about major complaints about it (The grappling thing really came off as a joke to me). The trade this time seems they are even more careful of there words... I don't think they bashed either one really.

I will also say it is really hard to say "We improved X" without at least implying that X needed to be improved.

 

[howandwhy99]

I found this to be an OK article. I mean, I didn't get a whole lot out of it, but there is stuff there a group should know before playing D&D. Maybe it's all very introductory to me. The 1st and 2nd level default quick & simple design is a mechanical issue I don't really care for, but then as was mentioned there are ways around it. Maybe I'm just not seeing a whole lot here.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I find it amazing how one comment by James Wyatt one time where he stated that just skipping an exchange with some random guard to get to the "good stuff" of the next plot point in your story has somehow evolved into the entire design team denigrating 3rd edition.

Who mentioned THAT little gem? Most of the time when I hear "denigrating 3e," the thing that is trotted out is the troll-poo cartoon.

[sblock=digression!]
But while I think a lot of cries about 4e poo-pooing (heh) 3e are kind of hyper-sensitive, 4e did quite reasonably sell itself as an improvement. And in order to be an improvement, it had to be fixing problems. And some of those "problems" weren't problems for everyone -- though the material often spoke as if it was.

Wyatt's OTHER quote about D&D not being about traipsing through the faerie rings feels a little more on-point: he was casting non-hostile fey encounters as a PROBLEM, a problem that 4e's concept of the fey would fix. That quite obviously isn't a problem for everyone.

To pull something else random out of the aether (and to spread the responsibility around -- Wyatt wasn't the only hand in 4e, though some of his quotes are especially narm-worthy), this article about demons and devils by Chris Sims spoke as if the similarity between demons and devils was something obvious and was obviously a problem, a problem that 4e meant to solve. Tell that to someone who'd been using a lot of planar material before 4e, and I don't think you would've found a big problem (let alone one that embraced re-assigning succubi as a solution).

I'm not saying early 4e material trash-talked 3e, really. But when you fix problems that aren't actually problems, it comes off as judgmental -- "Oh, I threw out that old ratty T-shirt for you (that you actually kept because it reminded you of your sick father)." Oh, I fixed Fey for you (that you actually enjoyed RPing with). Oh, I fixed demons and devils for you (that you never had a problem distinguishing before). Wait, you liked things how they were? But it had all these problems!

In development, 4e's guiding lights seemed to kind of occasionally forget that all D&D games are hyper-local experiences, that not everyone has the same problems or plays the same way. Which can totally seem like trash-talking. "Oh, looks like 4e agreed with everything all the haters are saying!" It's not -- not really -- but I get why some folks might get that impression, and it's not just because Wyatt one-offed a bit of misguided Fun Policing. It's a bit deeper than that, I think.
[/sblock]

 

[Iosue]

KM, I think that's an entirely reasonable take, and I agree with much of it. I would point out, though, that what you wrote hardly applies only to 4e. That's exactly the playbook WotC used for the 3e marketing, as well, only the we're a lot more strident in their mockery of 2e. They did, after all, make up t-shirts belittling 2e, and listing all the ways 3e was going to be better. On the whole, it seems like WotC's gotten more and more circumspect about criticizing the previous edition which each new one they've released.

Personally, thinking back to threads on the subject here back in 2010, 2011, I maintain what I said back then: the so-called bashing of 3e wasn't nearly as bad as 3e fans often characterized it as, and certainly not as bad as the 2e bashing. Explaining where the new design differs from the old, even characterizing those differences as improvement does not bashing make, and is actually essential in the marketing of a new edition. Most of my fellow 4e fans seemed to agree at the time. The only difference now is, I apply the same standard to 5e marketing, but it seems most of my one-time comrades apply a stricter standard. Now, praise and use of previous design is seen as implicitly criticizing 4e. This L&L being a textbook example. The whole column is about being able to choose your level of rules engagement, that point for any group where "the rules serve the gaming group" be that the whole works of skills, feats, backgrounds, subclasses, and encounter guidelines, or none of it, and somehow it's spun into Mearls slamming 4e.

Here's what Mearls was implicitly saying.
4e rules didn't serve its players when they want quick chargen, quick combat, and to not have to pay feat taxes to keep pace with the game math.
3e rules didn't serve its players when they wanted quick chargen, quick combat, and characters not unintentionally built weaker than others.
AD&D rules didn't serve its players when they wanted create their own concept of a character, and play with integrated, universal mechanics.
Classic D&D didn't serve its players when they wanted customizable characters and clear rules for multiple situations.

5e will probably have it's own problems, but the goal is to not have the above.

 

[I'm A Banana]

KM, I think that's an entirely reasonable take, and I agree with much of it. I would point out, though, that what you wrote hardly applies only to 4e. That's exactly the playbook WotC used for the 3e marketing, as well, only the we're a lot more strident in their mockery of 2e. They did, after all, make up t-shirts belittling 2e, and listing all the ways 3e was going to be better. On the whole, it seems like WotC's gotten more and more circumspect about criticizing the previous edition which each new one they've released.

That's pretty true. The difference, I think, is that by the time 2e ended, most saw it as something of a relief -- it had been around for a while and had lost market dominance. And 3e's systematic improvements were an easier sell -- it's not hard to persuade people that ascending AC and a unified d20 mechanic were good ideas (not that there was universal approval!).

Whereas with 3e, there were a much bigger audience of people who were basically OK with their games (as Pathfinder's current dominance shows), and 4e's improvements were much less obviously improvements in most respects (ADEU and devil-succubi aren't the clear wins that three saves and spontaneous spellcasting were).

I think with 5e, they're being quite careful not to overly insult 4e or its players. The message is that everyone has their favorite way of playing D&D, and 4e is great at a lot of things (many of which 5e hopes to preserve). 5e is the e replacing 4e, though, and since every edition is somewhat a reaction to the edition before, it's easy to see some of 5e's touted successes (Fast encounters!) as that same sort of "fixing problems that don't exist for me." I think 5e is being more careful about that, though -- it knows not everyone will be into fast encounters. This also makes its improvements a little harder to evaluate, without seeing them in actual action, because its improvements are not a new normal, they're a new option.

At any rate, I get where people can have that impression. And 5e's fixes risk being hard sells like 4e's. The difference is mostly that 5e doesn't seem to imagine that its fixes are great for everybody. They're great for people they're great for, and will be ignored by people who play differently. That's the right attitude to take (because it matches reality), and it helps mitigate the "We fixed this sucky thing that you loved!" syndrome, but it won't eliminate it.