New D&D Survey: What Do you Want From Older Editions?

WotC has just posted this month's D&D feedback survey. This survey asks about content from older editions of D&D, including settings, classes and races. The results will help determine what appears in future Unearthed Arcana columns.

The new survey is here. The results for the last survey have not yet been compiled. However, WotC is reporting that the Waterborne Adventures article scored well, and that feedback on Dragon+ has been "quite positive".

"We also asked about the new options presented in the Waterborne Adventures installment of Unearthed Arcana. Overall, that material scored very well—on a par with material from the Player’s Handbook. Areas where players experienced trouble were confined to specific mechanics. The minotaur race’s horns created a bit of confusion, for example, and its ability score bonuses caused some unhappiness. On a positive note, people really liked the sample bonds and how they helped bring out the minotaur’s unique culture.

The mariner, the swashbuckler, and the storm sorcerer also scored very well. A few of the specific mechanics for those options needed some attention, but overall, players and DMs liked using them.

Finally, we asked a few questions about the Dragon+ app. We really appreciate the feedback as we tailor the app’s content and chart the course for future issues. The overall feedback has been quite positive, and we’re looking at making sure we continue to build on our initial success."

 

[Minigiant]

No love for Magic of Incarnum or Dragon Magic classes?

Come on guys. Come on. Write them in guys.
They need new homes in a system which is addition freely.

 

[RodneyThompson]

Game design is a field of study. A craft, if you will. He's a celebrated and respected designer with a host of big successes. You're an angry dude with regressive ideas about game design, posting on the Internet. Yes, his words have more weight.

While I appreciate the kind words, I'm not sure I would even go that far. Look, I can be dead wrong as easily as the next person. I've had plenty of ideas about game design over the years that I no longer agree with; indeed, there are plenty of things I've designed that, looking back on them through the lens of 15 years of experience, I think were mistakes. In fact, when working on a new game design, I actively work to test ideas with the expectation that they will produce bad results, because bad ideas often open the door to good ideas. I think it's actually a sign of someone who doesn't want to continually hone their craft if their opinions and philosophies are unchanged after continued years of work. You try things out, you learn what works and what doesn't, you adjust your philosophies based on new data, and then you repeat the process.

The only things I ask of people who disagree with me about game design is that they 1) show proper respect for and avoid value judgments about the person espousing a different philosophy, 2) avoid hyperbole, and 3) recognize that games are complex things with many factors contributing to what is enjoyable.

So, while I do have a lot of experience under my belt, I think it's highly likely that anyone on these forums could make a salient point about a given topic and change my mind on it. Calling something lazy design because it makes some concessions to abstraction for the purposes of gameplay benefit pretty much violates all three of those tenets, which is the reason I decided to respond.

 

[spinozajack]

No, but it does lend his opinions more weight than yours. I trust a doctor's medical opinion a whole lot more than some dude who read stuff on WebMD.

Game design is a field of study. A craft, if you will. He's a celebrated and respected designer with a host of big successes. You're an angry dude with regressive ideas about game design, posting on the Internet. Yes, his words have more weight.

Oh, the delicious irony.

By this quote, you admit that any professional game designers who may post here are inherently to be taken more seriously than yours.

Also, LOL @ comparing game design with being a medical doctor. You can be a game designer with a high school diploma. Game design is about as evolved as medicine was, back in the dark age.

What game designers do is really not that important, and that complex if you ask me. It's pure thought, and rather simplistic if we're being honest. The smartest people in games are not game designers anyway.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I wonder what they will do if a large % of people write in warlord.

I mean on this thread alone we have 5 or 6 that did... I wish I was more public a face (BUT my twitter following is low 2 digit) or I would start a campign to write them in...

 

[Klaus]

First, a warlord could literally take a PC from the brink of death back to being unbloodied, or from bloodied to full health, from across the room, by using words alone, and not using magic, to negate the narrative effect of enemies trying, and succeeding, to cause damage to them. That is not a matter of opinion, but fact. You are entitled to your own opinions but not your own facts. The fact is, warlords forced you to reinterpret past narrative events in order to rationalize their abilities. That is anti-immersion by definition. It's also ridiculous.

I'll refrain from commenting any further on this, to respect KM's request.

Rodney has plenty of good products to his credit, but that is irrelevant. You have no idea who everyone is on this website, and even if Gary Gygax were to come here and post anonymously, his words and pedigree do not automatically make him right on every topic, or even any topic. What you are saying is that you believe the logical fallacy of an argument by authority. Rodney is an authority on the topic of D&D, therefore his opinions are inherently right.

Wrong.

It doesn't matter who posts anonymously. What matters is that when an accomplished professional posts on the board (under his/her true name, to boot), we ENWorlders should treat him/her with respect. As is the tradition of these boards since the beginning. THAT is the point I'm trying to make.

As for game design opinions, it is not automatically an Appeal To Authority to pay special attention to authorities in the a given field. That is, after all, how one learns.

 

[angrylinuxgeek]

The first part of your sentence has nothing to do with the latter. It is a rhetorical slight called "begging the question". You assume the game containing fantasy elements means that non-magical fantasy elements can be illogical or even impossible and get a pass.

This is forum meme that is pure nonsense.

That's...not what begging the question means.

 

[spinozajack]

I could literally quote half this board saying otherwise. If Gygax posted here, would that make his opinions about D&D, right? Gygax, unlike Rodney, actually invented this game. That makes him a genius. Releasing a successful 5th iteration 40 years later is not really that impressive, all things considered. It's certainly good news for the fans of this game that 5th edition is successful (due to it being inherently better designed than its predecessor, and therefore selling better). Rodney should be proud of his accomplishment, but no one should compare him to a medical doctor who saves peoples lives every day, or even someone like Gary Gygax who created the entire genre. Let's stick to reality here. I do respect Rodney's contributions, but his articles show a focus on gamism over narrative coherency, and that's why I disagree with him. It takes only the slightest thought to poke holes through gamist rules that make no sense in the story, and I'm glad here's here to set the story straight because there was plenty wrong with 4e, and still 5e is far from perfect. Disagreeing with him or calling certain class abilities "lazily designed" is my own opinion, and you cannot force me to state otherwise. I'm entitled to my opinion and many others share my point of view on many topics.

 

[spinozajack]

So, while I do have a lot of experience under my belt, I think it's highly likely that anyone on these forums could make a salient point about a given topic and change my mind on it. Calling something lazy design because it makes some concessions to abstraction for the purposes of gameplay benefit pretty much violates all three of those tenets, which is the reason I decided to respond.

Abstraction is not a pass though, it does not let you make game rules that are free from criticism, especially when you could easily write something entirely free of criticism merely by changing one aspect of it.

I would never even consider making a non-magical ability something that is literally impossible or totally makes no sense. Gamism, on the other hand, allows this. 4e was gamist to the nth degree, hence 5th edition being released so soon after. 5th edition's success is clearly a result of game designers acknowledging that players rejected disassociated, overly complex mechanics.

 

[Patrick McGill]

Birthright is one that I would love to see get the 5e treatment. The Downtime Activities of the PHB and DMG provide some nice stuff regarding building strongholds, and BR could crank that to 11. I really loved the idea behind BR in 2nd Edition, though execution was a bit swingy.

Mapping out your own stronghold is just too cool.

 

[Morrus]

Folks, please remember you're all guests here, and as such you are expected to refrain from being jerks to the other guests. Even if you don't enjoy their style of game design, you do not get to insult them. If you can't make a point without insulting somebody, your point gets to be left unmade.