Where do you see (or want) 5.0 to go?

[KidSnide]

I think the key feature that WotC needs to work back into D&D is the customize-ability that 3.x had. I think that one of the greatest strengths of 3.x was the ability to modify the rules to create something that was a little different than core D&D. The 4e rules might not be so bad, but the combination of the licensing restrictions and electronic tools that don't support custom content really restrict the usefulness of the 4e system.

I would also like the WotC designers to identify the core assumptions that differ within the gaming community and design optional rules that cater to those different assumptions. Positive examples from 4e are the inherent bonus and alternative rewards rules. That's a nice way of adjusting the rules for a campaign where treasure and items are not a primary goal. I think the designers need to identify a few other important assumptions that vary from group to group. Some examples:
- Does the game typically have multiple encounters per day, or are most combats the only fighting encounter of the day?
- How much of the campaign is taken up by non-tactical combat activity? (...and is there a way to insert appropriate sub-systems to help resolve such activity?)
- Does the group want grid-based combat or something faster and less tactical?
- How big are the battlemaps? (The dining room table stays the same size, but the game leave the grid for semi-tactical combat on a larger scape.)

-KS

 

[Doug McCrae]

A relatively recent example: my idea going in was for a jovial happy none-too-bright Cavalier that could hold his own in a fight and be played for a few laughs the rest of the time; and that's what I rolled up. Later that session, that's exactly what the party met. His Achilles heel later turned out to be his *pathetic* hit point rolls, but them's the breaks...

What you're describing is neither build, nor very random. After all, in a very random PC gen system you wouldn't be able to choose your PC's intelligence, or class. Or maybe even personality. In Pendragon, for example, personality is randomly generated.

One can have non-randomised, non-build PC gen systems, such as Over The Edge. I think FATE is similar, though with a little more build than OTE.

 

[Plane Sailing]

In D&D 4e (and 3e, come to that, as well as plenty of other games) character creation is a design process. You work out what you want to do, and then you go through the classes/feats/abilities and decide how to make that happen.

In Gamma World (and AD&D as well as other games), it's a lot more random. You roll/draw, see what you get, and play with that. There's a lot less decision making involved and you have a lot less control over how your character turns out. It's notably quicker, and people who have a strong character concept in mind can't expect to get it. Character concept comes after character creation, instead of before.

I think Gizmoduck is talking about the difference between builds and randomly generated PCs. 4e isn't really a great example of a build rpg - Champions, GURPS and 3e are a lot more 'buildy'. In Gamma World, a PC's mutant powers (and all other stats) are randomly rolled, so it is a good example of very random PC gen. Moreso than classic D&D, where a player can choose class and race. A lot of non-Champions superhero rpgs from the 80s also had very random char gen, such as Marvel Superheroes, Villains & Vigilantes and Golden Heroes.

Thanks for the extra clarification guys, I get it now!