Legends & Lore 16 Jan 2012

[LurkAway]

That's to say: if the rules are modular, the gaming group decides on which "rules modules" to employ at their table. I don't think you can apply "rules modules" on a per-player basis, aside from having different complexities of character builds to choose from which remain balanced with respect to one another.

Sure but I think the original concern was: what do you do when the DM and players all want to use different modules? A lot of people say 'the gaming group should decide' as if each group was a hivemind and the major divisions are between my group and your group, which maybe true but I think that the real problematic differences are those within groups. That's part of the social contract I was referring to.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

Sure but I think the original concern was: what do you do when the DM and players all want to use different modules? A lot of people say 'the gaming group should decide' as if each group was a hivemind and the major divisions are between my group and your group, which maybe true but I think that the real problematic differences are those within groups. That's part of the social contract I was referring to.

Yeah, this exactly. I'm personally concerned what will happen if we have a set of rules that allow that much modularity. I am getting sick of having battles that take an hour or more. I would like less important fights to take less time and only have hour long battles against really nasty enemies and bosses.

However, I suspect the only way the game will do that is by limiting the number of options people can use in the "quick combat rules". And my group of players LOVES options. Every time I tell them there is even a single feat or spell or whatever that they can't take in my game there is whining and complaining.

I suspect that, whatever the absolutely most complicated set of rules is in 5e, they will want to play that.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

The most encouraging part to me was the clear implication that neither 3E nor 4E would be the base, but would be directly supported via supplements. This says to me that the designers get that the styles that come out with 3E and 4E are both D&D, but neither are comprehensive.

 

[Knightfall]

Reading the new column makes me wary. What Monte is suggesting sound good in principle, but it is going to be very, very hard to implement in a way that unites D&D fans under the same game banner.

What happens if a gaming group wants to use the core (simplified) classes with only a few of the options presented for the advanced (complicated) classes?

Is it one or the other? What if I want a little complexity without having to go deep into the ruleset?

I guess what I'm wondering is how simple will the core classes be compared to the advanced classes?

 

[Knightfall]

The most encouraging part to me was the clear implication that neither 3E nor 4E would be the base, but would be directly supported via supplements. This says to me that the designers get that the styles that come out with 3E and 4E are both D&D, but neither are comprehensive.

Yes, it sounds like the core of the game will be closer to 1e/2e, with options to take your game into complexity of 3e/4e. Add to that the ability to mimic the structure of OD&D/BECMI by allowing players to construct elf/dwarf/halfling-based classes through core class multiclassing*, and you just might end up with a game that make most (if not all) D&D fans happy.

If they pull it off, it could be the most interesting D&D game ever built.

*See the link Phaezen posted.

 

[FATDRAGONGAMES]

5 pages, and not one comment on the part that I thought talked most about what needs to change.....

that the game is about our shared stories and experiences, and WotC basically abandoned writing great adventures that we all share. They'll also need to figure out a way to do that again, and not just write elegant rules.

Agreed 100%! It amazes me how the adventures like ToH and White Plume Mountain are still what I will reference when talking to other players even after 30 years, but we never mention any of the newer material. Those shared adventures, comparing stories of what happened, etc., that bonded players of the game more than anything.

 

[Tymophil]

There is something I don't get about this article. It states that D&D is all about adventures, and there is nothing on adventure writing/making/running in the text. It is all about the players characters... as usual. The DM seems to be forgotten...

I want to know how writing scenarios will be with D&D5... How easy it will be to translate ideas into gameplay.

This is the most important thing in D&D : adventures. Player characters are the ones who spend their money, right, but the DM spend more and are the ones who have the game played.

 

[Jawsh]

5 pages, and not one comment on the part that I thought talked most about what needs to change.....

that the game is about our shared stories and experiences, and WotC basically abandoned writing great adventures that we all share. They'll also need to figure out a way to do that again, and not just write elegant rules.

I think it was a conscious choice by WotC. They have said about their current philosophy that "you [the players] are the story". Right or wrong, they're trusting us to figure out how to spin the rules into a fun adventure.

 

[grimslade]

5E is homerule heaven

I see now what they are doing, foggily but I see it. An elf fighter/magic-user/thief, at a table with a fighting-man, warlord, and a CoDzilla is not what they are going to have. You will have a set of base classes that people will switch out bonuses/class attributes for specifics. The base class may be a bit more generic but can stand side by side with the tricked out option pony customized to each players desire.
How the heck can they balance this? The concept and goal is great, but no one likes to feel like they are the back up singers to the cheese factory. They need to playtest the crap out of this so cheese-weasels, (I am an apprentice cheddar marmot myself) can twist every combination to try and break the rules before it ships.
5E looks to be a new edition. The initial release(s) will be a new game that will not fulfill the promise of all editions at one table. The options/modules books will fulfill that with subsequent releases. 5E will be more robust than previous editions. Each module will be like a new mini-edition. I am more intrigued.

 

[Minigiant]

Reading the new column makes me wary. What Monte is suggesting sound good in principle, but it is going to be very, very hard to implement in a way that unites D&D fans under the same game banner.

What happens if a gaming group wants to use the core (simplified) classes with only a few of the options presented for the advanced (complicated) classes?

Is it one or the other? What if I want a little complexity without having to go deep into the ruleset?

I guess what I'm wondering is how simple will the core classes be compared to the advanced classes?

This is where my other hope comes in.

Simple/Basic/Core classes are just rulebreaking Complex/Advanced classes.

The Core fighter is just a Advanced Fighter that takes Toughness as all his feats, no encounter exploits, and is in the Fury Stance and Vanguard stance at the same time.

The Core wizard is just the Advanced wizard with every Spell Focus feat, no familiar, no at will cantrips, and 25% more spell slots.

Etc etc.