Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Argyle King" data-source="post: 5877640" data-attributes="member: 58416">My three questions1) By default and at the base level of the game, will the next edition of D&D have more granularity than what we have in 4th Edition?  While I understand many of the decisions made to simplify the game and even applaud some of them, I feel there are a few areas of the game which would benefit from a little more detail.  A few of the people I have played 4th with feel the same way.  In particular for me, Grab was somewhat underwhelming.  While I understand the reasoning behind wanting a more simplified solution than what was available for Grapple in 3rd Edition, I feel as though 4th went too far the other direction; in general, I feel that statement can be applied to most of the areas I find problematic in 4th.  2) What games are the design team familiar with beyond D&D?  Modularity is an idea which the driving force behind some of the systems made by other companies.  On the other hand, D&D has not -in the past- been a modular game in the same sense that I would call GURPS or the Hero System modular.  Being that this is new ground for D&D as a design goal, I am interested to hear if the design team has thought outside of the Red Box.3) The idea of using settings as a way to help introduce modularity and different styles of play. As such, what do you feel are the defining characteristics of and how to view the various D&D campaign settings?  For example, do you associate Dark Sun with gritty?  Eberron with ______?  Forgotten Realms with _______?  I know that a modular system can allow me to play a setting however I see fit, but I'd still like to know what some of the default assumptions are for the various settings when the design team looks at them or what is heard when the aesthetics and styles of those settings speak to you as a gamer.</blockquote>

Verification