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

[DEFCON 1]

I was also thinking that some of the changes from package to package might also be changing switches/dials to see how different settings play. Is that right? Even plausible?

I personally have always taken this as a given.

One packet has an alignment restriction for the paladin, another one does not. Do we (or WotC) know which one will be in the basic rules? Not until they release both options and hear from the masses what their preferences are.

One packet has true Vancian casting (select your spells in the morning slot for slot), another one has pseudo-Vancian casting (select your spells you prepare in the morning, but cast any number of them in any slot you choose). Do we (or WotC) know what which one will be in the basic rules? Not until they offer both options and hear from the masses which form they prefer.

One packet has a Short Rest of 5 minutes, another one has it as an hour. Do we know which one will be the basic rule (with the modularity to change it to other times as each game desires?) Again, not until they hear from the masses what they prefer as the basic rule.

Then, once they get a baseline for all these basic rules... the ones that are predominantly popular with the gaming populace... they can use the other options as modules for the basic rule. This has seemed to be their modus operandi from the very beginning, and why I've never really understood the doomsaying from people thinking that the game was moving away from the D&D they want to have. Because it has seemed like every packet has moved closer and further back and forth, as all the different options and dials get put out for us to rail against.

They've been doing their job by offering all the options for us to support or rail against... and we've been doing our job by actually doing so.

 

[Warbringer]

[/COLOR]
The short/long rest system is itself a hand-wave, not intended to be simulationist in any way.

Well I think it mores about playstyle and "genre" that you're trying to simulate, than simulation rules. Want gonzo, 5 minutes/1 day; want gritty 1 hour/1 week; want super gritty 1 day/1 week.

More of a head-nod than a hand-wave

 

[kimble]

I would rather that D&D be honest about the type of game it's going to be instead of lying to me in order to get me to buy it...

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. Even if those promises are never fulfilled.

If people buy those books and decide that this is not what they want, the designers can probably keep the edition for a few years (2-3) with the initial sales (as people slowly give up). If people don't buy those books, well, designers will get fired.

So they rather give you a bunch of promises, even if they can't fulfill all them, and expect that you'll buy and like the game anyway.

 

[MoonSong]

Also: @KaiiLurker , what's broken about Academy/Scholarly wizards?

Not exactly broken, just too good compared to the other traditions, also it has a disturbingly high amount of preppared spells, while the stacking and elevated number of high level spells are factors on previous edition's Wizard supremacy, the high flexibility they have is also a big factor on it, and 50% extra preppared spells is no doubt a flexibility boost the other traditions don't get (never mind Ritual casting), nothing wrong with the Illusionist and Evoker schools, their benefits are flavorfull and situationally usefull, but Scholarly wizards are instead just bland and powerfull. (really? exchange one cantrip for the benefit of having one of the remianing set to a school, then half of your spells known and one third of your preppared spells for the equivalent benefit of one 4e feat and a situational bonus?)

 

[DEFCON 1]

So they rather give you a bunch of promises, even if they can't fulfill all them, and expect that you'll buy and like the game anyway.

But then again... they haven't promised us anything.

What they HAVE done has said "Here's our design goals for what we want to accomplish with D&DNext, and all of our efforts are going towards the achievement of these goals." A D&D game that can reflect back on all the previous editions so that at the end of the day, a player can say "Yeah, that's D&D" and use the rules to play D&D.

Whether or not they succeed in that goal will be entirely dependent on what an individual person's idea of what D&D is. The more stringent you are in your definition, the most locked in on a particular edition you are over any of the others, or the less desire you have to play anything other than whatever you currently are... the less likely you're going to say they succeeded.

But the one thing they aren't doing is promising that D&DN will be MORE of whatever edition you prefer. They have never implied that in the least.

 

[kimble]

But then again... they haven't promised us anything.

No, they did promise us a bunch of modules. Here.

 

[DEFCON 1]

No, they did promise us a bunch of modules. Here.

"So, what sorts of rules are we looking at building? The list is a little fluid, but here's what we want to focus on. It's kind of a laundry list, and there's no guarantee that everything will be ready at launch, so it's more of a wish list."

-Mike Mearls

That's not a promise. It's a wish list. He outright says it in the article you quoted. No guarantees.

 

[Derren]

I am curious, if the game is designed to be modular, what will happen to adventure modules. What would be a challenge for one group would be a walk in the park for another. Making the adventures themselves modular would make writing one up a nightmare.

And thats why 5E will most likely end up with one set of core rules used by every further publication, adventure and the living campaign and a bunch of optional modules referenced once or twice and then never heard from again.
And it is unlikely that the complex combat system will be optional like skills etc. will be it seems pretty clear which playstyle 5E will support and which is only paid lip service to.

 

[kimble]

"So, what sorts of rules are we looking at building? The list is a little fluid, but here's what we want to focus on. It's kind of a laundry list, and there's no guarantee that everything will be ready at launch, so it's more of a wish list."

-Mike Mearls

That's not a promise. It's a wish list. He outright says it in the article you quoted. No guarantees.

If I say that there's no guarantee that everything will be ready at launch, I'm saying that at some point this "everything" will be ready. If I give a big list of modules that I want to work with, at some point I'm going to have to deliver them. If not all that, at least some of that.
If I don't, then I did not fulfill my promises.
So yes, they did make a lot of promises. Which ones they are going to fulfill, or even if they are going to fulfill any of those, is what we don't know yet. I believe they are going to do some of those things, but less than the fans expect. And those fans will only realize that after they bought the core books (PH, DM, MM).

 

[DEFCON 1]

If I give a big list of modules that I want to work with, at some point I'm going to have to deliver them. If not all that, at least some of that.
If I don't, then I did not fulfill my promises.

So basically, you're saying that Mike's promise is that he's promising "something". He's promising to make D&DNext and it'll have stuff in it.

If you want to get that nitpicky about it, then yes I concede. He has promised to make D&DNext, and you'll either like it or you won't. Glad we cleared that up.