Legends & Lore 16 Jan 2012

[JamesonCourage]

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?

Why would you think that's all they see? I mean, he didn't elaborate any more, but I don't think the point of the article was going in-depth into what 4e stood for in its very essence.

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

Maybe so, but expecting it in this article seems extremely weird, to me. I mean, I guess you could say, "I wish he had said 'the focus on narrative and meta-mechanics' instead", but really, read some of the comments on the article itself. People definitely mention balance. Should that be ignored, too? Should Monte launch into what each and every edition 'meant' at length?

I think you seem a little frustrated over the last few articles and Monte's take on it, but I don't think your criticism of this article is strong at all. I might be wrong, though, and I apologize if I am. As always, play what you like

 

[Frostmarrow]

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!

We know that a character of a certain class and level should have a certain chance of success at a certain task. In the basic rules we print that number expressed as a percentage. In the advanced rules you can build your character and get a bonus at the same task. It just so happens to be roughly the same odds.

The build might be a little more powerful but the basic character enjoys more leeway.

 

[delericho]

Second—and this sounds so crazy that you probably won't believe it right now

You're right. I don't believe it. Or, more accurately, I'll believe it when I see it, and not before.

 

[Aldarc]

While this is being designed with the intent to have players/characters of different edition styles all at the same table, I wonder if there will be a caveat at gaming tables that only permit certain edition styles at the table and not others.

 

[Lanefan]

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

So far, so good. Very good, in fact.

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.

I'd sure like to know how in the nine hells they're planning to pull this off; for without changing one character or the other almost beyond recognition I'd have deemed it impossible.

I have - once - tried converting a 3e character to 1e. Even though I had a built-in advantage in that said character was an attempt to replicate a 1e concept (Illusionist) using 3e rules and thus was closer to 1e style than most would be, what I ended up with was still a hugely different character.

I'll give credit where due, though: WotC are shootin' for the stars on this one.

Lan-"what is the AC of a star anyway"-efan

 

[Jawsh]

I have - once - tried converting a 3e character to 1e. Even though I had a built-in advantage in that said character was an attempt to replicate a 1e concept (Illusionist) using 3e rules and thus was closer to 1e style than most would be, what I ended up with was still a hugely different character.

Well, conversion is not the issue. It's just whether they can affect each other with their abilities. And whether they can both kill the same monsters.

But also, Cook and Mearls aren't saying they're going to directly convert 1e, 2e, 3e, and 4e. They're saying it will sort of feel a bit like those editions. Those are weasel words if I ever heard them.

 

[Jawsh]

So let's see. A 3rd edition rogue and a 4th edition rogue in the same party.

The 4e rogue has 24 hit points. The 3e rogue has 9 hit points.

The 4e rogue can sneak attack undead. The 3e rogue cannot.

I think I know which rogue I will pick.

 

[Izumi]

They are on the right track. I can't wait to learn more about what Monte and Bruce have forged. I'm hoping for a dungeon builder's guidebook of unholy vile arcana in evolving darkness that kills players of every edition in just the way and manner those gamers deserve and expect. Anticipation of new iteration is always an exciting time for D&D fans, ne?

 

[Will Doyle]

Some people are suggesting that D&D Next will basically allow them to "port" older edition characters alongside newer ones, or run 1st Edition modules out-of-the-box. I don't think that's what's intended. When they talk about "taking the best bits from each edition", they don't specifically mean rules: it's more about play styles:

"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." I don't take this to mean we're actually using 3E rules: we're just playing a version of D&D Next that uses more rules add-ons, giving the game a 3E, simulationist bent.

My money's on a new core rule set heavily based on a mix of 3E and 4th (or more specifically, Essentials): very basic, with a whole bunch of optional add-ons that cover varying situations. As for playing highly-customised characters alongside simpler characters, IMO the Essentials Slayer is a probably the sort of thing they'll be pitching for.

 

[Argyle King]

What happened to the results from the previous article's poll about realism?