D&D 5E What 5E needs is a hundred classes

[Sunseeker]

Maybe we're talking at cross purposes. I don't mind themes lasting five levels, if that's how many levels-worth of content they have for them. I have no problem with someone following one theme for five levels, then finding another for five, and so on, if that makes sense within the story.

What does not make sense to me is having people locked into a theme for five levels, and to have themes arbitrarily siloed by level and not by - for example - finding a secret organisation or reaching a certain level of magical aptitude. If I stop my major one year in and start studying something else, I don't keep learning the contents of my original major. And if it makes sense for there to be apprentice necromancers, then the Necromancer theme should be available at 1st level - the game-design concern that that might leave too few meaningful choices five levels down the track shouldn't overrule the logic of the game world.

Well you could hand out Themes and Backgrounds and Classes whenever you want. I mean they did say that one way to play is to leave the DM in charge of when and what you get.

 

[Bobbum Man]

If that is the case, why play D&D at all? If the sole purpose of the game is the game side of the spectrum, why not just pick up Cataan or Chess, for crying out loud?

Same reason you would play Boggle, or Clue, or Trivial Pursuit. Because it's a fun group activity that you and your friends can agree on.

There's really no more to it than that. Really. Any attempts to pretend otherwise are merely the case of an individual projecting his/her issues onto it.

Belittling other people's opinions in a condescending know-it-all manner and pretending to superiority because of some cut--the-crap philosophy does not make your arguments any more reasonable. What separates D&D from Chess is more than just playability. And at some level you have to know that an RPG needs more than just playability.

The only thing an RPG strictly needs is a resolution mechanic. Games like RISUS and FU prove this.

Your argument essentially boils down to something akin to "Just the game rules and leave all that fiction crap out." Frankly, that is exactly the opposite approach I personally want to see. Fiction first, then make the mechanics follow that fiction.

The problem being that the game only supports one type of fiction, which leaves those of us who don't give a peanut crusted turd about the Blood War, or The Negative Energy plane just plain SOL.

No thanks.

Now one viewpoint here only supports your needs, while the other supports your needs AND those of everyone else.

Now tell me again about how I'm the bad guy?

Edited to add - Fireball shouldn't be "Ranged Burst 5 within 20, 5d6 damage, save for half." Fireball should be "You create a bead of force that speeds from the point of your finger. When that bead reaches its destination, it explodes in a sphere of fire, injuring and setting fire to anything within its radius. ---- Ranged Burst 5 within 20, 5d6 damage, Reflex save for half. Unattended items catch fire. Creatures that save also avoid catching fire as well as keeping their items safe. Creatures that do not save can spend a move action to put out the fire."

Fiction first (what actually happens from the characters; point of view) -- then create the mechanics (how it works on a meta-text level). The same type of thing can be done for themes or classes, and from reading the preview stuff, I think this is exactly what the designers are doing.

Note: The above Fireball is just for example. I'm not suggesting this be the wording or the rule text (in fact, since I spent approximately 2 minutes typing this all up, I hope the actual rule looks nothing like this).

Funny that in order to refute my claim that playability is the most important aspect of the rules, you write a "fiction first" example of fireball, and then add a disclaimer stating that it might not be playable.

 

[Mercutio01]

There's really no more to it than that. Really. Any attempts to pretend otherwise are merely the case of an individual projecting his/her issues onto it.

Once again with the presumed superiority and condescension. Try another tactic, please, because your incessant insistence that you know better is absurd.

The problem being that the game only supports one type of fiction, which leaves those of us who don't give a peanut crusted turd about the Blood War, or The Negative Energy plane just plain SOL.

Funny, that. I've never played in either of those. In fact, I haven't played in most established settings of D&D.

Now one viewpoint here only supports your needs, while the other supports your needs AND those of everyone else.

True. I think mine does.

Funny that in order to refute my claim that playability is the most important aspect of the rules, you write a "fiction first" example of fireball, and then add a disclaimer stating that it might not be playable.

And yet you ignore the obvious (I'm not a professional game designer) and the stated facts (I spent all of 2 minutes writing it up) and ignore the fact that there are paid game designers that would presumably spend more than 2 minutes to make one that's totally playable (incidentally, my rough write-up is at least partially based on the real rules from several different editions). And the gamist one (the first, in case there's a question) is completely worthless to me.

 

[Bobbum Man]

Once again with the presumed superiority and condescension. Try another tactic, please, because your incessant insistence that you know better is absurd.

Funny, that. I've never played in either of those. In fact, I haven't played in most established settings of D&D.

True. I think mine does.

And yet you ignore the obvious (I'm not a professional game designer) and the stated facts (I spent all of 2 minutes writing it up) and ignore the fact that there are paid game designers that would presumably spend more than 2 minutes to make one that's totally playable (incidentally, my rough write-up is at least partially based on the real rules from several different editions). And the gamist one (the first, in case there's a question) is completely worthless to me.

I think you should take a moment to ask yourself why it is you find yourself so emotionally invested in this argument, since you're pretty clearly feeling defensive and reacting with hostility.

 

[Mercutio01]

I think you should take a moment to ask yourself why it is you find yourself so emotionally invested in this argument.

I think you could answer that yourself. Because I'm emotionally invested (and financially!) in Dungeons and Dragons, and would like to see them succeed at their goals of uniting a fractured fanbase in one edition of D&D. And because if I wanted to play a board game that was completely divorced from roleplaying, I'd pull out Candyland or Monopoly. And since I definitely don't want that, I definitely do not want D&D to become "just another game" as you describe it.

EDIT: I see you added another condescending dig. Once again, your opinion is neither as objective as you think nor as superior as you believe. Tone down the smug snark, and maybe you won't come across as so entitled.

 

[Bobbum Man]

I think you could answer that yourself. Because I'm emotionally invested (and financially!) in Dungeons and Dragons, and would like to see them succeed at their goals of uniting a fractured fanbase in one edition of D&D. And because if I wanted to play a board game that was completely divorced from roleplaying, I'd pull out Candyland or Monopoly. And since I definitely don't want that, I definitely do not want D&D to become "just another game" as you describe it.

But it IS just another game.

There is nothing inherent in the game or it's players that make D&D anymore special than Risk, or Chutes and Ladders. This is a reality that people need to accept, or else they'll kill the entire hobby with fanatical devotion to specious gaming dogma.

 

[Mercutio01]

But it IS just another game.

There is nothing inherent in the game or it's players that make D&D anymore special than Risk, or Chutes and Ladders.

And this is exactly why we are at cross-purposes. It is not just another game like Risk or Chutes and Ladders. There is something inherent that separates (maybe not "mak[ing it] anymore special") it from a standard boardgame. That something is the first part of the term "roleplaying." In Risk, I don't pretend to be a world leader sending troops to kill other nations and take them over. In Chutes and Ladders, I don't inhabit the world or character and pretend to enjoy the slides. There's a whole other added element that separates RPG from just another game. If there wasn't, we wouldn't be even having this discussion.

This is a reality that people need to accept, or else they'll kill the entire hobby with fanatical devotion to specious gaming dogma.

More snarky digs. I'm such a fanatic that I have dozens of other RPGs that I play with as much or even more regularity as D&D. And please, show me specious gaming dogma in my posts or fanatical devotion. I'm interested to see what opinions I have posted that you think are superficially plausible but completely wrong. If it's that point from above (just another game), then I think we're at an impasse.

 

[billd91]

But it IS just another game.

There is nothing inherent in the game or it's players that make D&D anymore special than Risk, or Chutes and Ladders. This is a reality that people need to accept, or else they'll kill the entire hobby with fanatical devotion to specious gaming dogma.

To people who don't feel the emotional connection, sure it's another game. But to aficionados, or hobbyists, the game is considerably more than just a game. And this really is true of many games that require time and effort to master like chess, many war games, and RPGs.

 

[Bobbum Man]

And this is exactly why we are at cross-purposes. It is not just another game like Risk or Chutes and Ladders. There is something inherent that separates (maybe not "mak[ing it] anymore special") it from a standard boardgame. That something is the first part of the term "roleplaying." In Risk, I don't pretend to be a world leader sending troops to kill other nations and take them over. In Chutes and Ladders, I don't inhabit the world or character and pretend to enjoy the slides. There's a whole other added element that separates RPG from just another game. If there wasn't, we wouldn't be even having this discussion.

Just as there's something inherent that separates Clue from Mille Bournes, or Stratego from Monopoly.

You don't take on the persona of a top hat in Monopoly, but in D&D you don't guess the coordinates of enemy ships to sink them either.

Like I said...D&D isn't special. People just pretend it is, because to do so gives them a sense of purpose and identity.

Some would say that identity gamers are going to be the e eventual death of this industry, as they take a silly game wayyyyy too seriously.

More snarky digs. I'm such a fanatic that I have dozens of other RPGs that I play with as much or even more regularity as D&D. And please, show me specious gaming dogma in my posts or fanatical devotion. I'm interested to see what opinions I have posted that you think are superficially plausible but completely wrong. If it's that point from above (just another game), then I think we're at an impasse.

Sure. Just as soon as you show me where I directed this accusation at YOU specifically.

 

[Mercutio01]

Like I said...D&D isn't special. People just pretend it is, because to do so gives them a sense of purpose and identity.

Some would say that identity gamers are going to be the e eventual death of this industry, as they take a silly game wayyyyy too seriously.

And now, if you're not deliberately trolling, I'm completely confused as to why you registered to post on a bulletin board forum that is devoted to RPGs as a whole and D&D in particular. And why your registration month coincides with the announcement of a new edition. Your pseudo-superior snark and lame insistence that D&D is the spiritual equivalent of Battleship convinces me that you don't have any investment in what D&D is, should be, or can be. If that is the case, why do you care at all what D&D does? There are plenty of board games out there (including D&D branded games) that would seemingly fit your needs better than D&D. Heck, if all you're looking for is the boardgame aspect, then D&D Minis seems like it would be right up your alley. Maybe even a better fit than trying to remove the RP from RPG, like you've been advocating here.