D&D 5E Mike Mearls live streaming of DnDNext with R&D superstars

[Manbearcat]

Just watched this again. Two things 4e (at inception) got wrong reared their ugly head in this session:

1) Overabundance of stun effects (Original 4e Dracolich) utterly shutting down player or monster actions. That ghoul fight should have been a TPK. 3/4 of the party was stunned and multiple people were stunned progressively. Loose use of Stunned (save ends) or Stunned (use your action to attempt a save) and sit on your hands and hope you don't fail your save or sit on your hands some more is terrible. Mearls pulled punches to avoid a TPK; dragging off the PC's to eat them is a total waste of the Ghoul's action economy and I'm fairly sure that they're supposed to dogpile a paralyzed PC in the module. That would have been a TPK after a combat bogged with multiple people doing nothing...not such a great marketing expose of their shiny, new product. Abundant (at-will especially) SoS at low levels (PC-side or NPC-side) is not so good.

2) "You enter town. Make a Charisma check" for the information dump/plot reveal eg RAW Streetwise "rumor-fetching" in 4e. If the PCs need to know something tell them...don't create the illusion that they're involved with legitimate resolution by the ole "roll a Charisma check" shtick. If you want the PCs to interact, let them ask questions about the setting and interact. If the PCs want to create content and drive the game forward ("The barkeep of Fist Full of Ale owes me a favor, lets go there") and actively seek out an information dump as part of a Transition Scene, let them do that and then play out the conflict resolution. Information dump via Charisma check as stand-in for social interaction/rumor-fetching doesn't instill a lot of confidence that the Social Pillar has robust conflict resolution mechanics.

 

[Warbringer]

[MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION]

So, not a fan yet

 

[Plaguescarred]

The the good news is that they plan to do more!


@gregbilsland On Friday, I participated in a #dndnext livestream. It's now up on YouTube. We plan to do more in the future. http://ow.ly/mz66B

 

[GX.Sigma]

Mearls has also tweeted recently that he recorded a postmortem podcast with DM commentary. I eagerly await it! The more I hear R&D members talk, the better!

 

[Manbearcat]

@Manbearcat

So, not a fan yet

Well. I just don't know how they're going to pull this off. I'm not so much concerned that they're going to pull it off for me personally as I think its pretty clear that they aren't catering to my tastes. I just find it hard to reconcile a hardcore FFV dungeon crawl using rules, a design ethos and gaming sensibilities that are basically a mashup of Basic, AD&D 2e and elements of 3.x. To be bluntly honest, watching that (and rewatching it) was a horror show for me in many ways. I could go on in much greater detail but I don't want to pile on. If I was emotionally invested in this being a product that I expect to purchase and play regularly, that probably would have been the most dispiriting moment to date for me.

With the current ruleset, design ethos and culture they're trying to engender, I think they can win lapsed Basic fans and AD&D 2e (especially the latter years with supplement creep) fans that wanted to make the change to 3e but raged when it didn't turn out to be the evolution they were looking for and maybe 3e fans that didn't jump to PF. That is how it plays to me (a mashup of those). However, I need to see an extraordinary amount more coherency, tools and polish to believe that you can play hardcore FFV 1e gamist dungeon crawling or get the incoherent experience of 4e with an awesome, tactically robust combat interface with narrative drift via abstract non-combat conflict resolution (with PC-side and GM-side tools and clarity to empower the two). It also seems that there is an enormous contingent of PF fans due to their proficiency in writing APs. Without the proficient AP writers, I doubt you get those lapsed fans.

I wish they would have compartmentalized multiple product lines and supported them. They could have cleaned up each of the existing editions with ease. Personally, I would purchase a better 1e, a cleaned up 3e as low fantasy, gritty, granular process-sim with a normalized action economy and nerfed magic, and a polished 4e with further narrative (mechanics) expansion. And I'd buy support products/an Insider account. I really think that would be a much easier row to hoe from both a capital investment standpoint and a sheer people power/mental overhead standpoint. And I suspect there are a lot of "mes" out there. How many would it take to make up the difference? I think the revenue would exceed the current model.

 

[TheWriterFantastic™]

Well. I just don't know how they're going to pull this off. I'm not so much concerned that they're going to pull it off for me personally as I think its pretty clear that they aren't catering to my tastes. I just find it hard to reconcile a hardcore FFV dungeon crawl using rules, a design ethos and gaming sensibilities that are basically a mashup of Basic, AD&D 2e and elements of 3.x. To be bluntly honest, watching that (and rewatching it) was a horror show for me in many ways. I could go on in much greater detail but I don't want to pile on. If I was emotionally invested in this being a product that I expect to purchase and play regularly, that probably would have been the most dispiriting moment to date for me.

We have to continue to keep in mind that this is still a work in progress and that the combat you're looking at is with the core of the system -- they've repeatedly indicated that there will be a more complex tactical module for those that want it. One of the most vocal criticisms from D&D fans on the past two editions has been the duration creep of combat -- if you spend 2 hours out of a 3 hour session on combat, that leaves only an hour for exploration and interaction (and that's being generous--don't forget time lost to tangential conversation, snack runs, and bathroom breaks). While mook encounters can be a vital aspect of an adventure, allocating an hour and a half to each fight that was likely intended as a brief interlude in the plot is just slowing the overall pacing. If your players prefer complex combat for every encounter, use the complex tactical module, but it shouldn't be a system requirement for all players -- this is the entire point Next: streamlined core for everyone and the modules to tweak to taste. It's far easier to have the simplified core and add modules to taste than it is to have a complex core and pull out aspects of the system to taste that may break how everything else works.

I wish they would have compartmentalized multiple product lines and supported them. They could have cleaned up each of the existing editions with ease. Personally, I would purchase a better 1e, a cleaned up 3e as low fantasy, gritty, granular process-sim with a normalized action economy and nerfed magic, and a polished 4e with further narrative (mechanics) expansion. And I'd buy support products/an Insider account. I really think that would be a much easier row to hoe from both a capital investment standpoint and a sheer people power/mental overhead standpoint. And I suspect there are a lot of "mes" out there. How many would it take to make up the difference? I think the revenue would exceed the current model.

Unfortunately, this would cripple WotC's D&D brand further than it already is -- part of the original TSR's downfall was mismanagement of the brand -- trying to push two separate and full D&D games at the same time in addition to pushing multiple products for each of its campaign settings each year. From a marketing perpective, this is the sounder approach -- if you try to give each faction of fans exactly what they want by just refining each faction's favorite system and publishing product for each simultaneously, it's just going to maintain the fracture in the fan base and limits the profitability of each. Unfortunately, bottom line is whether or not they can profit--if they can't, that won't ensure the longevity of the line. Their aim to design a streamlined core with modules that will invoke the spirit of its predecessors and play to the tastes of its varied fanbase seems to stand a solid chance of recapturing a wider group of lapsed players, as long as they continue to follow through.

 

[M.L. Martin]

The the good news is that they plan to do more!


@gregbilsland On Friday, I participated in a #dndnext livestream. It's now up on YouTube. We plan to do more in the future. http://ow.ly/mz66B

Maybe they'll actually start showing off the system, then.

 

[pemerton]

Just watched this again. Two things 4e (at inception) got wrong reared their ugly head in this session:

1) Overabundance of stun effects

<snip>

Mearls pulled punches to avoid a TPK

<snip>

Abundant (at-will especially) SoS at low levels (PC-side or NPC-side) is not so good.

2) "You enter town. Make a Charisma check" for the information dump/plot reveal eg RAW Streetwise "rumor-fetching" in 4e. If the PCs need to know something tell them...don't create the illusion that they're involved with legitimate resolution by the ole "roll a Charisma check" shtick. If you want the PCs to interact, let them ask questions about the setting and interact. If the PCs want to create content and drive the game forward ("The barkeep of Fist Full of Ale owes me a favor, lets go there") and actively seek out an information dump as part of a Transition Scene, let them do that and then play out the conflict resolution. Information dump via Charisma check as stand-in for social interaction/rumor-fetching doesn't instill a lot of confidence that the Social Pillar has robust conflict resolution mechanics.

Good post.

The second isn't a big surprise. I've not been that optimistic about their social mechanics, and because of D&D's reluctance (i) to get players involved in backstory creation D&D, and (ii) to admit that there are aspects to the game other than PC build and action resolution, D&D has always had trouble with starting adventures other than via faux CHA/reaction checks with patrons, informants etc.

For a stark contrast with (i), look at Burning Wheel, where you practically can't build a PC without also contributing to the campaign backstory and locating your PC within a host of ready-to-go conflicts (and out-of-the-box 4e has strong elements of this too, though not as strong as BW). For elaboration of (ii), consider the D&D tendency to try and frame campaign and encounter design as action resolution, where the action that is being resolved is the GM "playing" the gods, the NPCs, the dungeon architects etc.

Your first point is a worry, though. It's not like no one has noticed this before, or thought about ways of dealing with it!

 

[werecorpse]

Well Orc psychology aside, I wasn't keen on the swapping of weapons ( ie Longsword to javelin) or getting out loading and firing a crossbow as part of an attack option with no obvious penalty.