D&D 5E What is most important to you for 5e?

[Connorsrpg]

All the cool bits from all previous editions. With just enough of the new for the 'wow' factor.

(Interesting material without an over reliance on 'balance' in all areas).

 

[pemerton]

Nobody thinking quality adventures being important? Do you guys make all your adventures yourself or have DMs that make them for you?

In my campaigns I have used published adventures from a range of systems - HeroWars, 3E, 4e, B/X, Rolemaster, probably others that I'm forgetting. I like published adventures for maps - I don't particularly like having to design my own - and for background, premises and situations that I wouldn't think of myself. But the good thing about 4e - which is what I'm currently GMing - is that it makes the mechanical implemenation of an adventure pretty straightforward. I don't need to worry much about conversion.

If I end up running D&Dnext, I will therefore only care about the quality of the adventures published for it if the system makes conversion/statting up very hard. I hope it doesn't, though.

 

[pemerton]

I tend to adjust the DC for a diplomacy check based upon what the PC actually says. You can say something totally insane and I'm not going to have the NPC just go along with it because you have a high diplomacy.

If the player says something insane, then in my game they can't make a Diplomacy check. Just like if the player says "My guy draws a picture with a crayon", they can't then make a sword attack to resolve it.

What checks a player can make are, in my game, contingent on what they characterise their PC as doing (ie I play in what I take to be the standard 4e way, given the adivce in the DMG).

 

[Emerikol]

If the player says something insane, then in my game they can't make a Diplomacy check. Just like if the player says "My guy draws a picture with a crayon", they can't then make a sword attack to resolve it.

What checks a player can make are, in my game, contingent on what they characterise their PC as doing (ie I play in what I take to be the standard 4e way, given the adivce in the DMG).

I suppose your answer is what I get for using extreme examples. I'm just saying I think I'm middle of the road on roleplaying vs rollplaying. I like rolling for social activity but I think some player input which might adjust the DC is fine. I don't roleplay it after making the roll though. I roleplay it and then make the roll. Because how it is roleplayed and what is said has some effect. Not total but some. I tend to not worry about how well said something but I tend to focus no what was said.

 

[pemerton]

I roleplay it and then make the roll. Because how it is roleplayed and what is said has some effect. Not total but some. I tend to not worry about how well said something but I tend to focus no what was said.

I prefer an approach in which what was said doesn't affect the difficulty of the roll, but its consequences for the unfolding situation. If you're interested, here are some actual play examples.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I suppose your answer is what I get for using extreme examples. I'm just saying I think I'm middle of the road on roleplaying vs rollplaying. I like rolling for social activity but I think some player input which might adjust the DC is fine. I don't roleplay it after making the roll though. I roleplay it and then make the roll. Because how it is roleplayed and what is said has some effect. Not total but some. I tend to not worry about how well said something but I tend to focus no what was said.

You advocate a hard line actor stance that requires you exclude every other possible alternative in a game that has its roots in pure pawn stance, and you claim to be middle of the road? For that matter if you're even talking about how roleplaying vs rollplaying is a dichotomy you're way over in one corner.

There's nothing wrong with your position here. But middle of the road it isn't.

I'm also not for class based, actually, I'd rather have the option to abandon classes as such and create PCs via backgrounds and other toolkits. As mentioned above. So packages of abilities "from a menu" would work very well for me. Actually, enforcing a strong class based system would probably turn me away.

Seriously? You think 4e isn't D&D and you're advocating that? At a guess you started with 3.X?

Edit: @pmerton, your UBB code needs fixing And I think both links are to the same thread?

 

[Emerikol]

You advocate a hard line actor stance that requires you exclude every other possible alternative in a game that has its roots in pure pawn stance, and you claim to be middle of the road? For that matter if you're even talking about how roleplaying vs rollplaying is a dichotomy you're way over in one corner.

There's nothing wrong with your position here. But middle of the road it isn't.

I didn't say I was middle of the road on everything. I said on the issue of rolls vs verbal conversation I'm middle of the road. I do roll for social skills (many many do not and no retrocloner would I'd think) but I also allow the actual words said (not how well) have an impact on what happens. I don't roll and then speak. I speak and then roll.

I advocate for a D&D game that has a successful tradition of dominating the market exclusively for nearly thirty years. I do not advocate to exclude new ideas or add-ons to this base. But when I cannot play in the original D&D playstyle at all then I believe they've went wrong. I'm not saying D&D cannot expand to include additional playstyles. You though want to stomp out my playstyle. Which is your choice but from a business perspective it's a real bad idea. Pathfinder adopted that "antiquated" playstyle as you like to think it and is now number one. A ton a retroclones have also adopted it and they are selling to someone. If 5e supports that playstyle it will probably outsell the entire lifetime of 4e in the first year as so many eagerly return home.

I'm certain even if you are not that the WOTC people regret going too far in the design of 4e. One reason they regret it is that any good ideas that 4e might have had were tarnished by the general reaction against the game. A lot of us would be happy with some of the ideas from 4e making it into a game but we are against the rigid solution that 4e provided for those ideas.

 

[Emerikol]

I prefer an approach in which what was said doesn't affect the difficulty of the roll, but its consequences for the unfolding situation. If you're interested, here are[/rul] some actual play examples.

I'm for people playing in their campaigns how they like. I'm just against rules that can only be interpreted one way. The healing mechanics and daily mechanics of 4e made it hard for anyone to play any way but the author way. No actor approach was possible. So I'm hoping 5e provides for an actor approach as well as the others. I get no satisfaction from denying anyone their game playstyle. I just want the game to support mine since it appears to be a popular one (at least generally). 4e did lose a ton of players for some reason.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I advocate for a D&D game that has a successful tradition of dominating the market exclusively for nearly thirty years.

No. No you don't. You are advocating for a 2e-approach. You advocate for the only strand of the D&D tradition that failed to dominate the market - even now the competition to D&D is from D&D. You advocate for the only part of the D&D tradition that was ever actually outsold while it was putting content out. For a time 2e was actually outsold by Vampire- and even when Vampire wasn't outselling it in the 90s White Wolf gave D&D some stiff competition.

I do not advocate to exclude new ideas or add-ons to this base. But when I cannot play in the original D&D playstyle at all then I believe they've went wrong.

The original D&D playstyle, Gygaxian and Arnesonian, the one that dominated the market for fifteen years wasn't Actor Stance. It was Pawn Stance. You do not, as far as I can tell, even try to play in Pawn Stance. And there certainly isn't anything in 4e to prevent pawn stance being used.

Actor Stance was mostly a 2nd edition D&D thing. And 2nd edition had many good points - but it was the edition that ran TSR into the ground in part because it tried to turn D&D into something it simply wasn't and however clunky the system Storyteller used it was made for this.

I'm not saying D&D cannot expand to include additional playstyles.

Just as well. It expanded to include yours.

You though want to stomp out my playstyle.

No I don't. You want to stomp my ability to play non-casters out. I want a live and let live situation that seems to be anathema to you. It's your decision to cry "I can't live with a game where there is an option to allow this" - that's the cry of someone who wants to stomp a playstyle out.

The irony is that we both want the same thing here - immersion. However we just approach that in different ways. You never want to make a choice that doesn't directly map to an IC choice. I want to make a choice close to the one my character makes. That is the difference.

Which is your choice but from a business perspective it's a real bad idea. Pathfinder adopted that "antiquated" playstyle as you like to think it and is now number one. A ton a retroclones have also adopted it and they are selling to someone.

How many 2e retroclones are selling? Most of the OSR games are for Pawn Stance pieces.

And the OSR is seriously overrrated in size IME. Also I'm not sure what WotC could have done to help Paizo more. Giving control over their regular creative content to a third party. Aggravating and dismissive statements and marketing. And then to cap it all, when it looked like there was competition, instead of raising their game they stopped publishing books thereby handing a large chunk of the market to Paizo giftwrapped with a nice bow on top.

Almost everything round 4e has been done either excruciatingly badly or with spectacular bad luck (see Gleemax or Borders going bust just after they announced Essentials) except the game itself. The game is good - but if I were trying to sabotage it the results would only be different by a computer virus or two.

 

[Emerikol]

No. No you don't. You are advocating for a 2e-approach. You advocate for the only strand of the D&D tradition that failed to dominate the market - even now the competition to D&D is from D&D. You advocate for the only part of the D&D tradition that was ever actually outsold while it was putting content out. For a time 2e was actually outsold by Vampire- and even when Vampire wasn't outselling it in the 90s White Wolf gave D&D some stiff competition.

Not at all. Until 4e I was able to play my preferred playstyle in every edition of D&D. So perhaps we aren't agreeing or understanding each other when we use the term actor. I'm just trying to avoid plot coupons.

The original D&D playstyle, Gygaxian and Arnesonian, the one that dominated the market for fifteen years wasn't Actor Stance. It was Pawn Stance. You do not, as far as I can tell, even try to play in Pawn Stance. And there certainly isn't anything in 4e to prevent pawn stance being used.

I haven't even heard of pawn stance. I've heard of Actor/Author/Director. And I'm talking about 1e,2e,3e. All three of those games supported my playstyle.

Actor Stance was mostly a 2nd edition D&D thing. And 2nd edition had many good points - but it was the edition that ran TSR into the ground in part because it tried to turn D&D into something it simply wasn't and however clunky the system Storyteller used it was made for this.

I don't get this distinction. 2e was identical to 1e except for some math fixes.

Just as well. It expanded to include yours.

From red box on it supported my playstyle.

No I don't. You want to stomp my ability to play non-casters out. I want a live and let live situation that seems to be anathema to you. It's your decision to cry "I can't live with a game where there is an option to allow this" - that's the cry of someone who wants to stomp a playstyle out.

This is a lie. Please find the quote where I say I want to eliminate your option to play your way. I said I cannot play a game that does not support my playstyle. That does not mean I cannot play it if it supports yours. But it also has to support mine.

The irony is that we both want the same thing here - immersion. However we just approach that in different ways. You never want to make a choice that doesn't directly map to an IC choice. I want to make a choice close to the one my character makes. That is the difference.

I agree and instead of fighting about definitions we should all be accepting where people stand and stop trying to argue them out of their preferences. Instead we should suggest options and ideas that have cross over appeal. Where not possible we should suggest ways to seamlessly modularize.

How many 2e retroclones are selling? Most of the OSR games are for Pawn Stance pieces.

I enjoyed 1e,2e,3e. Not sure I know what pawn stance is.

And the OSR is seriously overrrated in size IME. Also I'm not sure what WotC could have done to help Paizo more. Giving control over their regular creative content to a third party. Aggravating and dismissive statements and marketing. And then to cap it all, when it looked like there was competition, instead of raising their game they stopped publishing books thereby handing a large chunk of the market to Paizo giftwrapped with a nice bow on top.

Almost everything round 4e has been done either excruciatingly badly or with spectacular bad luck (see Gleemax or Borders going bust just after they announced Essentials) except the game itself. The game is good - but if I were trying to sabotage it the results would only be different by a computer virus or two.

But a lot of people really do have issue with 4e as a game. It only supports your playstyle for example. When 4e was launched they basically told me to get lost. We don't want you playing D&D. And after trying it I obliged them.