D&D 5E Legends and Lore 6/23: System vs. Content in D&D Next

[DEFCON 1]

So why give a list of possible modules? Or write that article at all, if all that he means is "we are probably going to do some optional rules. Maybe. Maybe not."
I mean, sure, I don't think that they'll finish all that. I already said that I don't think that they will fulfill all those promises.
But to say that he wrote a whole list of modules, show that in an article about what we can expect from the advanced rules and that this isn't the same as promising that at least some of those will be done? Please.

And what is truly the difference between a "promise" and an "intention"? Seems to me... the only reason why it matters in the slightest is so that some people can feel justified in their righteous indignation if/when some "promises" don't happen. They can be all "See! WotC is a bunch of liars! I knew it! Screw them!"

Some people hold onto this idea that WotC are bad people so tightly that they feel the need to set up a self-fulfilling prophecy for themselves so that their feelings can always be considered "true".

 

[kimble]

And what is truly the difference between a "promise" and an "intention"? Seems to me... the only reason why it matters in the slightest is so that some people can feel justified in their righteous indignation if/when some "promises" don't happen. They can be all "See! WotC is a bunch of liars! I knew it! Screw them!"

Quoting myself: I wouldn't say lying because that would insult the designers, but from all the promises so far, they expect you to buy the PH,DMG and MM and like the game.(...)

I even said, multiple times, that I don't expect to see all in that list as modules.

So no, I'm not calling anyone liars. Since the beginning, I'm trying to have a calm conversation and I never insulted any designers. Please, don't try to tell me what I'm thinking.

Some people hold onto this idea that WotC are bad people so tightly that they feel the need to set up a self-fulfilling prophecy for themselves so that their feelings can always be considered "true".

They are not bad people. Again, I never said they are bad people. They are workers and Wotc is trying to sell their product. If you think that companies won't use hyperboles to sell products, I'm sorry for you.

And if your best argument is telling me how I hate WotC (what?) and that I'm calling them liars (wtf?), there isn't any reason to continue this.

Good luck, I hope Next is exactly what you wanted.

 

[Balesir]

This is getting into the sort of metagame navel-gazing I positively despise, but could all of these ticks be collapsed into a "phase" that incorporates all of these things?

It may be hateful 'abstraction'/metagaming/whatever, but the point of using these sorts of names is that they are automatically flexible. If one group wants "exploration time-ticks" to be 5 minutes while another wants them to be 1 hour, the modification needed is trivial. Likewise with "campaign" (or maybe "living and travelling") time-ticks; whether you want them to be 8 hours or a week, no problem - just call them what you prefer, scale your travel maps appropriately and carry on. For each scale, you have three variables: time scale, space/movement/achievement scale and number of actions per "time-tick". Set any two and the third is fixed; then you're ready to go!

 

[GX.Sigma]

This is getting into the sort of metagame navel-gazing I positively despise, but could all of these ticks be collapsed into a "phase" that incorporates all of these things?

The cleric casts a spell during combat with a duration of 3 "phases," and it lasts through three combats, or two combats and a rest, or a combat, a rest, and then a second combat, or perhaps even a combat, a rest, and an exploration phase.

This is pretty much exactly "turns" from classic D&D.

 

[Jack99]

Sure it does. My point is quite simple. Nymrod make a claim that good modules makes a system, citing Pathfinder as an example. I told him that I disagree on the primary reason why Pathfinder has been the success that it has been. I really do not see anything confrontational about it. /shrug

 

[Balesir]

This is pretty much exactly "turns" from classic D&D.

Kind of - except that the 1 minute combat round made the scheme kinda odd, and that it tied everything to gameworld time, rather than to game concepts like 'encounter' and 'rest', which tended to obscure things and lead to heated discussion of what, exactly, characters could achieve in ten minutes.

On the "just one turn type" ("phase"), I don't think you'll get much simpler than the basic three I listed. Combat rounds pretty much have to be separate, and days of travel get to be a real drag if done in 5/10 minute "turns". This division also shows the utility of having specified "actions" rather than pretending your scheme doesn't amount to "actions" as they have now. To match the time scale you want with the distance scale you want and keep things in line, it would be really helpful to have defined "actions" for exploration, where the number you get is determined by the ratio of time- to distance- scale.

Sent from my ASUS Transformer Pad TF300T using Tapatalk 4 Beta