Plane Sailing
Astral Admin - Mwahahaha!
Me too!
-
NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.
Seminar Transcript - Charting the Course: An Edition for all Editions
- Thread starter Morrus
- Start date
Me too!
I actually kinda like Drizzt more than Aragorn.
Also don't care much for using orcs/ogres at higher levels since my players (and myself as DM) get bored of monsters once we've used them too much. I try hard to use new stuff every campaign (as long as it makes sense for the campaign it self)..
but the design goals do sound pretty good. still will see if my players go for it...
Sanjay
Also don't care much for using orcs/ogres at higher levels since my players (and myself as DM) get bored of monsters once we've used them too much. I try hard to use new stuff every campaign (as long as it makes sense for the campaign it self)..
but the design goals do sound pretty good. still will see if my players go for it...
Sanjay
Kurtomatic
First Post
D&D Next is a Stack
In today's seminar, they talked about the core rules lexicon, and the idea that the optional modules would have seeds in the core. This part of the seminar isn't getting the bandwidth that splashier bits like the playtest snippets are getting, but let's have some fun with it.
This description suggests a model where the "core" is really a vocabulary of terms and relationships. The core also includes some basic rules which provides the process for using that vocabulary in play (an implementation). Optional modules hook into the core by assigning or changing these underlying rules without modifying the seeded lexicon or its defined relationships (i.e., design by contract).
The lexicon is a game platform with an included "core" vanilla runtime. The various rules modules are an implementation package library contracted to that platform. These modules can be swapped out and layered as desired to meet varying output requirements. New modules can be added by the players themselves or third parties.
D&D Next is a stack.
In today's seminar, they talked about the core rules lexicon, and the idea that the optional modules would have seeds in the core. This part of the seminar isn't getting the bandwidth that splashier bits like the playtest snippets are getting, but let's have some fun with it.
This description suggests a model where the "core" is really a vocabulary of terms and relationships. The core also includes some basic rules which provides the process for using that vocabulary in play (an implementation). Optional modules hook into the core by assigning or changing these underlying rules without modifying the seeded lexicon or its defined relationships (i.e., design by contract).
The lexicon is a game platform with an included "core" vanilla runtime. The various rules modules are an implementation package library contracted to that platform. These modules can be swapped out and layered as desired to meet varying output requirements. New modules can be added by the players themselves or third parties.
D&D Next is a stack.
howandwhy99
Adventurer
I think in more or less fuzzy terms this is what most people expected. The questions now are: what are the invariants? What are the elements of the game that define how every other supplement to plug into it.
It's a good thing they are getting into a little higher level math here for design. It's been in my head for awhile now that D&D is more of a language game and the core elements a lexicon. That's a good term and I believe it has some history in the hobby. I'm curious whether or not they will be dipping into linguistics as well, but I suspect not for the short term. Most of what has been talked about for core are numerical descriptors.
It's a good thing they are getting into a little higher level math here for design. It's been in my head for awhile now that D&D is more of a language game and the core elements a lexicon. That's a good term and I believe it has some history in the hobby. I'm curious whether or not they will be dipping into linguistics as well, but I suspect not for the short term. Most of what has been talked about for core are numerical descriptors.
Argyle King
Legend
So, I'm curious how this is done in a way which is different than what is already being done with some of the toolkit systems.
For example, I can play a campaign using GURPS Lite. It's not nearly as robust as the Basic Set, but it's possible. If I want more in depth options for melee combat, I can by GURPS Martial arts, and it expands upon the rules in the Basic Set. If I want a modern game which is inspired by Hollywood reality, Matrix, and things of that nature, I use Gun Fu. If I want a more gritty experience with guns in the vein of something like Band of Brothers, I would get Tactical Shooting.
None of these options change the core. They simply expand upon the core options. Like I said, Martial Arts gives more melee options. I listed both gun books as a way to illustrate how two different supplements can cover the same topic, but do so in a way which provides a completely different style of game. As said, Gun Fu is over the top action in the vein of Equilibrium, The Matrix, and etc; Tactical Shooting would be more for a more realistic treatment of modern weaponry.
(Note: If I really wanted to, I could mix elements from both of the mentioned gun books together too.)
Is the D&D 5E model similar to that (in theory) or different? I'm curious how such an approach can be made in such a way to keep the core essence and feel of D&D. I'm also curious how such an approach can make itself different enough to make me choose it over one of the other modular games.
For example, I can play a campaign using GURPS Lite. It's not nearly as robust as the Basic Set, but it's possible. If I want more in depth options for melee combat, I can by GURPS Martial arts, and it expands upon the rules in the Basic Set. If I want a modern game which is inspired by Hollywood reality, Matrix, and things of that nature, I use Gun Fu. If I want a more gritty experience with guns in the vein of something like Band of Brothers, I would get Tactical Shooting.
None of these options change the core. They simply expand upon the core options. Like I said, Martial Arts gives more melee options. I listed both gun books as a way to illustrate how two different supplements can cover the same topic, but do so in a way which provides a completely different style of game. As said, Gun Fu is over the top action in the vein of Equilibrium, The Matrix, and etc; Tactical Shooting would be more for a more realistic treatment of modern weaponry.
(Note: If I really wanted to, I could mix elements from both of the mentioned gun books together too.)
Is the D&D 5E model similar to that (in theory) or different? I'm curious how such an approach can be made in such a way to keep the core essence and feel of D&D. I'm also curious how such an approach can make itself different enough to make me choose it over one of the other modular games.
TarionzCousin
Second Most Angelic Devil Ever
Good. I like pancakes.D&D Next is a stack.
Kurtomatic
First Post
What are the invariants, indeed!
It's fun to chase each other in circles trying to guess what classes/races/doodads are going to be part of the "core rules", but I'm not sure those lines of thinking are as applicable as many assume. Everyone wants to make sure their favorite stuff ends up in the core, because traditionally a lot DMs like to use the "core rules" as a convenient firewall (and for good reason!).
But that's all implementation, and less important to the core in this theoretical Next model. It's a different way of thinking about the game. I'm not sure it matters much if my favorite||hated classes are in the basic rules volume, whatever that ends up looking like. The real question is, can I safely include||exclude the desired||loathed game elements using the core lexicon.
Last edited:
Similar Threads
