D&D 5E Will there be such a game as D&D Next?

[mudbunny]

Because if that's the way D&D has always done it then clearly it must be a good thing.

Wait, when was it decided that bickering with the DM about what supplements are legal or what the game will be like before every game was a good thing?

Figuring out what supplements are allowed, and trying to convince the DM to choose a supplement you want is a part of the game. It helps to make sure that everyone is going into the game on the same page. If the DM wants to run a straight up Monty Haul dungeon run campaign, whereas the players are expecting a game involving multi-generational family dynasties and political intrigue, there will be problems.

 

[Obryn]

I've been asking the same thing for ages. It depends on how modularized it is -- at one extreme (and I recognise this as an exaggeration) a game can be so modularized and primarity consist of optional rules that it's not a game, it's an instruction manual on how to write your own game. Too many options erodes the common experience/identity of the game -- "I play D&D Next" won't have any more meaning than "I play a fantasy game".

I'm hoping it trends away from that a little. Obviously it'll never be that bad, but I do tend towards the desire for less modularization and a greater shared experience (that's not to say I want uniformity -- I'd hope that everybody's campaign is totally different to everybody else's).

I can imagine, with wanting to produce 3rd party material and running a successful board, both of these are pretty big concerns!

The healing bit is the topic now, so let's start here. I think there are a few degrees of nonmagical healing possible, from Never to Hit Dice to 4e Warlords to fully encounter-based healing without daily resources at all. How much will the balance shift between these assumptions? Should someone writing an adventure assume some in-combat healing is available? How do you pace a dungeon if you don't know how often the party can refresh itself and to what degree?

These seem like new concerns to me that writers didn't need to bother themselves with overmuch in the past. There was a set of default assumptions. With the promised/hoped-for level of modularity to make all players of every edition happy, I don't see much room for that kind of default.

-O

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Because if that's the way D&D has always done it then clearly it must be a good thing.

Wait, when was it decided that bickering with the DM about what supplements are legal or what the game will be like before every game was a good thing?

What's the alternative? Create a game with no options?

 

[Bedrockgames]

I can imagine, with wanting to produce 3rd party material and running a successful board, both of these are pretty big concerns!

The healing bit is the topic now, so let's start here. I think there are a few degrees of nonmagical healing possible, from Never to Hit Dice to 4e Warlords to fully encounter-based healing without daily resources at all. How much will the balance shift between these assumptions? Should someone writing an adventure assume some in-combat healing is available? How do you pace a dungeon if you don't know how often the party can refresh itself and to what degree?

These seem like new concerns to me that writers didn't need to bother themselves with overmuch in the past. There was a set of default assumptions. With the promised/hoped-for level of modularity to make all players of every edition happy, I don't see much room for that kind of default.

-O

I think the way they will handle it is how they handled writing modules for wide level ranges. We will probably get sidebars here or there Titled "for parties with non-magical healing". Keep in mind, for groups like me who dont use the nonmagical healing option, we often dont worry about pacing as much anyways (that is part of the reason why cleric only heals dont really phase us). I think what they do, dependingon how the numbers work out, is include extra encounters or options to beef up encounters in gray text for parties with more healing resources.

 

[steeldragons]

What's the alternative? Create a game with no options?

YYYYYYYYYES! I LIKE it!

Don't like what the game says? Tough. NO OPTIONS!

Take all yer baby-whinin' min-maxin' must-have-class-optimizin' lack-of-balance-sobbin' 20-siders n' si'down!

Here's a 10HP Fighter with a sword that does d6 damage.

-But I wanted to play...

NO. Fighter. Sword. Roll.

-But my damage should be...

Nuh!

-Buh...?

N-

-I don't want...

NO OPTIONS FOR YOU!

[/attempt at sarcastic humor]

*sigh* Of course, then what would we do with no differences to disagree over? What would we talk/type about?! ...*shrug* Might be nice fer a change o' pace, though.

 

[Falstrom]

I started a next playtest about 2 months ago and I have to say my group have jumped at the freedom from playing 4ed since its release. It's like the older editions in that having fewer rules creates space for the players to say - why can't my fighter do that? What can WE do to let my fighter do that?

 

[DEFCON 1]

The healing bit is the topic now, so let's start here. I think there are a few degrees of nonmagical healing possible, from Never to Hit Dice to 4e Warlords to fully encounter-based healing without daily resources at all. How much will the balance shift between these assumptions? Should someone writing an adventure assume some in-combat healing is available? How do you pace a dungeon if you don't know how often the party can refresh itself and to what degree?

I would think the answer would be obvious. It's not up to the adventure writer to pace the dungeon. It never has been. Why? Because every table plays differently, and even if everyone uses the same rules for healing (like they have in the past), each table still has differing pacing issues based purely on how the players play and how the DM DM's.

So no... the adventure writer can't account for pacing. He never could. All he can do is write the adventure and include places where encounters will take place, and it's up to each individual table to figure out how far they can get with the resources they have before they have to hole up somewhere and rest.

The exact way it's always been.

It's just this time it's not just playstyle that will make the location different. The table's healing rules will have a say too.

 

[Morrus]

I would think the answer would be obvious. It's not up to the adventure writer to pace the dungeon. It never has been. Why? Because every table plays differently, and even if everyone uses the same rules for healing (like they have in the past), each table still has differing pacing issues based purely on how the players play and how the DM DM's.

So no... the adventure writer can't account for pacing. He never could. All he can do is write the adventure and include places where encounters will take place, and it's up to each individual table to figure out how far they can get with the resources they have before they have to hole up somewhere and rest.

The exact way it's always been.

It's just this time it's not just playstyle that will make the location different. The table's healing rules will have a say too.

That's a horrible undervaluation of what an adventure author does.

That's not the way it's always been. And it's not the way it is now. The adventure author is very influential on pacing.

 

[n00bdragon]

Designing the game so that it's impossible for adventure designers to plan ahead seems like a recipe for failure. Premade adventures would become a total "guess and check" as to whether it will work for your group. Monsters can't be assigned any sort of meaningful difficulty rating making "what should I throw at my party" another guessing game. If there's no baseline expectation of what players should be capable of at any given level... can you really even credit Wizards of the Coast as being game designers? "Some Assembly Required" indeed.

 

[Roland55]

I second Del. I've never played in a D&D game since 1979 without caveats. ("Can we use stuff from Dragon? Oh, you know, just this half-ogre anti-paladin ... why do you ask?") 5E won't be any different in that regard.

I'm guessing WotC (and third party publishers, if they're smart enough to let them back in the clubhouse this time) will design for them most stripped-down version of the game, as a rule.

This matches my experience, but I hope they don't just design for the most stripped-down version of the rules. That might make their modules too limited.

In any event, just my experience ... and my hope(s).