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

[thecasualoblivion]

Again, this is a choice to use a negative conotation.

Not having addressed a specific topic yet, when there are a plethora of topics to be addressed, is not evidence of neglect.

There are a group of people posting here at ENWorld, and especially here in this thread, that seem to be choosing to view any statement, any action, or any lack of either in a deliberately negative manner in regards to D&D Next; when there is no evidence, facts, or logic presented that objectively leads to such conclusions.

Not being addressed doesn't indicate neglect. The 14 month timespan does.

 

[Campbell]

Not being addressed doesn't indicate neglect. The 14 month timespan does.

I don't view the current state of affairs as neglect. Neglect implies that some obligation exists. WotC doesn't owe me anything. I don't owe WotC anything. What I see is a superficial analysis of what 4e players value. Presentation, design, and strong mechanics that fit together well are important to me. I don't expect or want a retread of 4e, but the impression I have is my fiction first priorities, expectancy of designing a game for the action at the table, and basing mechanics on strong mathematical analysis driven by a coherent design agenda are no longer priorities for WotC.

Oh well. I still have plenty of other games that suit my needs, and WotC might still prove me wrong. If they do they'll have my business. I also hope they continue to release more of the 4e catalog on DTRPG.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

I don't view the current state of affairs as neglect. Neglect implies that some obligation exists. WotC doesn't owe me anything. I don't owe WotC anything. What I see is a superficial analysis of what 4e players value. Presentation, design, and strong mechanics that fit together well are important to me. I don't expect or want a retread of 4e, but the impression I have is my fiction first priorities, expectancy of designing a game for the action at the table, and basing mechanics on strong mathematical analysis driven by a coherent design agenda are no longer priorities for WotC.

Oh well. I still have plenty of other games that suit my needs, and WotC might still prove me wrong. If they do they'll have my business. I also hope they continue to release more of the 4e catalog on DTRPG.

I don't think WotC owes me anything as a 4E fan, but if the 'modular D&D for everybody' they keep advertising Next to be isn't going to include 4E, they should stop being evasive about it and fess up.

 

[Ratskinner]

'Not gritty' is a low bar to set for cinematic. 1hp/hr is more of a wishy washy nothing than either cinematic or gritty as it fails both.

I agree, but also suggest that the game needs to handle "gritty" as well. I would tend to feel uncomfortable with hard-coded rules that make it difficult to bend in either direction.

 

[El Mahdi]

deleted

 

[Ratskinner]

My interpretation of @thecasualoblivion 's point is this: resting for an hour may be cinematic (in some sense of that word), but is not action. Whereas getting your second wind during the course of a fight is not only cinematic (in some sense of that word) but is also action, in the sense of something resolved at the table in the course of play that contributes directly to the particpants' sense of, and emotinal investment in, the ingame situation.

Second Wind contributes to emotional investment?....that seems a bit of stretch to me. Not that I think its a bad idea at all. It would just be sortof a D&D version of MHRP's "recovery roll".

 

[Ratskinner]

It would be nice if people would address the sort of game I and others are trying to describe as an ideal and what we are describing as wanting out of 5E instead of arguing over the meaning of the word "cinematic".

If people would care to get past the semantics, I'd love for people to go back and actually read what has been said and comment on whether or not 5E can, has, or should deliver the sort of game I and others have been trying to describe. This, as opposed to arguing over what words mean to no useful end.

From the last several, I would suggest that some Luck Points or somesuch mechanics could easily be added to the game, with a "Second Wind" being one use for them. It would seem to me that the relatively open/simple structure of 5e (so far) would make that trivial to add, with plenty of room for variation in recovery, etc.

 

[Nagol]

No it doesn't. By that logic, every other concept or issue not visited yet, such as the Bard, Gnomes, Paladins, Rangers, Druids, Warforged, etc., etc., etc., are evidence of neglecting them. And that's just not so.

Not getting to it yet is not neglect.

To quote old Inigo Montoya: I do not think that word means what you think it means.




It does include 4E. It may not include enough of what you want...yet...but it does include 4E. Just as it includes 3E, 2E, 1E, OD&D, etc., though doesn't include all of them either (just bits and pieces at this point).

There is no factual or logical basis present for such negative assumptions about 5E.

What speaks to the direction much more than the timeframe or any individual rule is the use of the old-school type adventures as test beds. I suspect they would look quite different if the game was being designed to support a stronger narrative / story direction.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

I agree, but also suggest that the game needs to handle "gritty" as well. I would tend to feel uncomfortable with hard-coded rules that make it difficult to bend in either direction.

This is indicative of another issue: people don't want just one thing. In addition to a cinematic action focus for HP and resource management, as a 4E fan I'm looking for a strong, coherent system. Leaving things I care about to AD&D-style ambiguity is a non-solution to me.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

From the last several, I would suggest that some Luck Points or somesuch mechanics could easily be added to the game, with a "Second Wind" being one use for them. It would seem to me that the relatively open/simple structure of 5e (so far) would make that trivial to add, with plenty of room for variation in recovery, etc.

The issue would be not with the Hit point system itself, but how changing the hit point system would have a negative or unbalancing effect on other parts of the system and 5E offering little to no solutions for the consequences or ramifications of changing how healing works