Legends & Lore 16 Jan 2012

[Phaezen]

Dungeons & Dragons Roleplaying Game Official Home Page - Article (Looking at the Past and the Future)

Monte sketches out a couple of the design considerations for D&D Next

1. D&D Next is about the adventure not about the rules

2. Not all players have to have equally complex characters and they are designing for allowing a player at a table with a minimal 1st/2nd ed character playing next to one with a 3rd or 4th ed style character with all sorts of feats, skills and special abilities.

 

[JamesonCourage]

Monte also notes: "imagine that the game offered you modular, optional add-ons", confirming that it'll be a simple base, with add-ons, rather than more complex with opt-out options. Probably a better base.

It'll be interesting indeed to see how they let "your 1E-loving friend play in your 3E-style game and not have to deal with all the options he or she doesn't want or need." He's piqued my curiosity.

 

[WheresMyD20]

It'll be interesting indeed to see how they let "your 1E-loving friend play in your 3E-style game and not have to deal with all the options he or she doesn't want or need." He's piqued my curiosity.

I'm guessing that if you're running a 1e-style character, then all your feats, skills, powers, etc. are pre-chosen for you and "baked into" your character class. If you're running a 3e-style character, you get to pick and choose which feats, skills, powers, etc. you want.

 

[trancejeremy]

I'm guessing that if you're running a 1e-style character, then all your feats, skills, powers, etc. are pre-chosen for you and "baked into" your character class. If you're running a 3e-style character, you get to pick and choose which feats, skills, powers, etc. you want.

I don't know about that, it says

. Your 1E-loving friend can play in your 3E-style game and not have to deal with all the options he or she doesn't want or need. Or vice versa. It's all up to you to decide

Even if they are pre-picked, it's still having to deal with feats and powers and skills...

 

[Jan van Leyden]

I'm guessing that if you're running a 1e-style character, then all your feats, skills, powers, etc. are pre-chosen for you and "baked into" your character class. If you're running a 3e-style character, you get to pick and choose which feats, skills, powers, etc. you want.

But 1e focused on player choice in a game situation while 3e+ focus on payer choices during character generation and development.

A "ready-to-go" character with pre-selected choices still has a fixed profile. For special combat maneuvers, e.g., like disarming or grappling, you need the respective feat in 3e+ or suffer a big penalty. What about the ready-to-go 1e style fighter? Will he actually better than his 3e+ counterpart because all these feats are considered selected? Or will he be worse off because because they are not? Each solution would be simple because the player doesn't have to select something, but it has a great effect on the effectiveness of the character.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I don't know about that, it says



Even if they are pre-picked, it's still having to deal with feats and powers and skills...

Pre-selected may not be all to it.

Essentials had character classes (or builds) that didn't have daily powers, for example. They weren't "pre-selected". They didn't exist. Instead, they got various bonuses that were roughly equivalent to having daily powers (no spike potential, but more reliable).
They still had encounter powers. But I suppose even those could be replaced with static bonuses.

So, if you play the "Simple Fighter", you may get something like +1 to damage every level and 1 extra hit point per level and make basic attacks.
If you play the "Complex" Fighter, you get encounter, utility and dailiy powers.
If you play the semi-complex Fighter, you get stances, basic attacks, and an encounter power you can 1-3 times per encounter, and +1 to damage every 4 levels.

Now, the reason it worked for 4E was basically - people had healing surges. That still limited how much they could do over the course of a day, as combat will inevitably cost hit points. Does that imply something like healing surges will remain in the game?

 

[pemerton]

I was struck by a different part of the column, namely this description of 4e:

the carefully balanced elegance of 4th edition​

Is this all the WotC designers see in 4e?

Nearly all the debates on these forums about 4e - including the hit point and warlord threads in this sub-forum - turn not on questions of "balanced elegance" but on the relationship between mechanics and mechanical processes, on the one hand, and the fiction and fictional processes (ie the causal logic of the gameworld) on the other.

It would be nice to see some recognition of these different approaches to RPGing from Monte Cook.

 

[Iosue]

After the "what I call passive perception" debacle, I'm just glad Cook had a kind word for 4e.

 

[Phaezen]

I was struck by a different part of the column, namely this description of 4e:

the carefully balanced elegance of 4th edition​

Is this all the WotC designers see in 4e?

Nearly all the debates on these forums about 4e - including the hit point and warlord threads in this sub-forum - turn not on questions of "balanced elegance" but on the relationship between mechanics and mechanical processes, on the one hand, and the fiction and fictional processes (ie the causal logic of the gameworld) on the other.

It would be nice to see some recognition of these different approaches to RPGing from Monte Cook.

Can we not bring verisimilitude into this thread, there is another thread dealing with that issue.

 

[Stalker0]

There are certain aspects I can see in my mind as far as modular game design. I can see how they would add different subsets to the game as far as complexity.

However, I'm skeptical on the whole simple vs complex yet balanced.

How can one character be extremely simple, while another have a ton of different options and expect them both to be balanced in play? We've seen enough imbalance when players have access to the same materials!