D&D 5E Should Next have been something completely new and made from scratch?

[MerricB]

Here is a L&L article from almost how years who talking about the goals of DDN and no where does it talk about being compatible with earlier editions. Instead it talks about a modular system that could recreating the style of each earlier edition.

Here's a later article, where Mike sets out the limitations of what modularity we can expect:
https://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20130128

In particular, there are certain rules that you can apply to only some characters, but there will be systems that require everyone at the table to use them.

Cheers!

 

[pemerton]

If you attempt the same things in Next that you attempt in 2e, and have the same die rolls, you get some very different results of those actions.

To me, a Gygaxian heart would imply a certain range of results, a certain set of probabilities, that would be apparent when the dice hit the table. I do not see those probabilities in Next.

Can I ask what you have in mind? Thetwo most obvious difference I can see are (i) between the success chances for checks based on "roll under stat" and the success chance for checks based on "achieve DC with roll plus mods, and (ii) between the saving throw success chances in AD&D and the saving throw success chances in Next.

This is of course a maths issue, and we're told that the maths is still in flux while the designers concentrated on the feel. All I can say is, if what happens isn't part of the feel then it seems like calling things by the "right" names is more important than making them mean anything.

I think there is a part of the player base, and probably a non-neglibible part, for whom the numbers on the PC sheet are more important as a source of "feel" and a marker for certain ingame capabilities or dispositions, than they are as resources to be put to work via action resolution. For these players, I think "what happens based on the maths of action resolution" is not such a big part of "feel".

 

[Bluenose]

Can I ask what you have in mind? Thetwo most obvious difference I can see are (i) between the success chances for checks based on "roll under stat" and the success chance for checks based on "achieve DC with roll plus mods, and (ii) between the saving throw success chances in AD&D and the saving throw success chances in Next.

Those are two of the more obvious ones. For inntance, a 2e Fighter's worst saving throw improves by 11 points from 1st to 17th level, and that improvement isn't offset by many saves at increased difficulty; a 3e Fighter's best save improves by 10 points from 1st to 20th, and that is against DCs which increase dramatically. Is it any wonder their ability to resist spells is lower?

Less obviously, the consistency that was applied to how stats work is one factor that led to a huge inflation in hit points for both PCs and opponents. Now this is partly compensated for by increased damage dice and by critical hits, and very largely reversed by the Power Attack feat. Unfortunately the result of using that last is to create a situation where anything is a one round kill with hit points largely irrelevant, and the only reliable protection against attacks is having magic available to stop those attacks landing at all. Armour and hit points are much less relevant and it's highly unlikely that a mid-high level Fighter will survive several rounds in combat with a dragon of similar power; in part because it's much more likely that the dragon won't survive that long anyway, it's saving throws being compromised compared to earlier editions, and it's own hit points and armour not being particularly helpful to it's survival.

Of course the answer to theses changes is found in the form of magic items, at least according to some of the people who defend 3e against charges of not being like earlier editions. Compare the gear that equips 3e pre-generated characters with those from A/B D&D, and the inflation on both number of items and size of bonus is very noticeable. And highly undesirable if your twenty year old homebrew campaign setting is one where magic items are supposed to be rare.

I think there is a part of the player base, and probably a non-neglibible part, for whom the numbers on the PC sheet are more important as a source of "feel" and a marker for certain ingame capabilities or dispositions, than they are as resources to be put to work via action resolution. For these players, I think "what happens based on the maths of action resolution" is not such a big part of "feel".

Somehow I think that's what the phrase "D&D in name only" was coined for. As long as the names seem right, who cares about the play.

 

[McTreble]

For all of you, in ANY ONE of these threads who claimed they haven't seen enough modularity, enough 4th edition mechanics, enough Vancian spellcaster options, etc... This was only the CORE game. It was only ever sold as a playtest of the CORE game. Yes, they peppered in some wild ideas that might become something else later, but just because you haven't seen tactical rules, or kingdom building rules or (haha) RP rules, doesn't mean they aren't coming. As far as I know, WotC has always stood by that idea, so please consider that long term approach before you start the whining machine. Also, for any of you who complain that WotC just "went ahead" and made decisions without presenting a poll and asking what we wanted about this or that, or even major issues... get over it. It's not your company; they want our input, but not on EVERYTHING. They took a huge risk in this transparency, giving away a product and admitting to no revenue stream for at least a year, but that's not enough for some of you. You want to be consulted on every decision (Don't get me started on the inane "damage on a miss" arguments that exist lately) no matter how minute. Maybe Mearls should ask all the neckbeards which hand he should use to wipe next time?

 

[pemerton]

Don't get me started on the inane "damage on a miss" arguments that exist lately

I think we need a poll on whether or not to get you started on "damage on a miss" arguments!

 

[ForeverSlayer]

This makes no sense; they did make an entirely new game from scratch. While it's true that they wanted to make the edition feel like AD&D, they aren't pulling any mechanics or traits from it. Rather, they have lowered the power creep of 4E, lifted the creativity of 2E, and shaken up the flexibility classes of 3E to create a new edition.

Ultimately, we're playing Dungeons & Dragons, and they need to stick to certain aspect of that system. We're going to have classes, Armor Class, Hit Points, the core ability scores, skills, and everything else that goes along with playing D&D. What differs from edition to edition is the balance of those elements and what the leveling process is throughout.

If you want to play a game like Shadowrun, Call of Cthulu, Warhammer 40K, Mutants & Masterminds, or L5R then play goes games. It's not WotC job to make a clone of those games to draw in customers; it's their job to make each edition of D&D something that people will enjoy playing (not all people, but enough).

But they are essentially trying to clone bits of other editions and cram them together into one game, While that execution may be new, it's not a "from scratch" ruleset.

 

[the Jester]

Would it have been better if D&D Next was a completely new game that the designers created from scratch?

Not if they want to call it D&D.

 

[athos]

Would it have been better if D&D Next was a completely new game that the designers created from scratch?

Better is too subjective a term. I think some people would like it more, it would be more of a gamble though, look at how they screwed the pooch on 4e; people get upset when you change the things they love about the game. Right now 4e is their market, do they really want to risk losing those people, like they lost the 3.5ers. I mean when 3.5 was at it's height of popularity, they pulled the rug out from under it. Imagine when WoW was at the height of it's popularity if they decided to completely change it... bad business decision? Yeah.

With 4e, they were trying to cash in on the WoW market. With 5e, they are trying to keep the people that like 4e, and bring back those that liked the earlier editions that have mostly moved on to Pathfinder or other games. No matter what you do, you aren't going to please everyone. But, I do think it is better to lead than to chase.

And, I don't think the corporate drones they have at WotC and Hasbro are smart enough to come up with something completely new and different and wonderful. If they could have made a WoW and made billions of dollars, don't you think they would have? Disclaimer: I have never played WoW, I tried once and a rat killed me in a forest before I could do anything, so I gave up on it. It isn't my cup of tea, I am too slow for twitch games. There are millions of players of it though, so it is obviously very successful and profitable.

Pen and paper gaming is a truly unique hobby that combines social and tactical elements, it is not something that you can plug in a formula and just get oodles of money. Even if you hit on the perfect recipe, how many players could you attract? A million? More?

It's a tough industry, to succeed in it, I think you need to love the game more than money. What is it they said, "Do what you love and the money will follow"? I think that applies to RPGs more than most industries. Anyway, that is my 2 cents.

 

[Mistwell]

That's EXACTLY how they presented it to me when they first did their original presentation. It appears things have changed.

Link?

 

[GreyLord]

Oh, this is grand, something happened and caused a double post...wonder if there was an IE update recently? I'll have to check.