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

[Manbearcat]

We've slowly been seeing a goalpost moving, reframing of design intentions as the effort has worn on. Concurrently, we've seen people either (i) act like it isn't happening, (ii) act like people responding to the signals are either misinterpreting things or are being reactionary. We are now seeing people who are pleased with or unaffected by the new, reframed design intentions saying "they're ok with that" with no accompanying acknowledgement that people weren't misinterpreting signals or acting reactionary.

Typically, when an extremely controversial (seeming) reframe has occurred, a damage control Legends and Lore or Rule of Three (and sometimes a quick forum post) has immediately swooped in to clarify the reframe. My guess is, on this one, we are not going to see that; which will be a telling signal. Yet still I suspect that it either (i) won't be happening or (ii) it will be a misinterpretation or reactionary.

I hate marketing shenanigans. I wish they would just get on with it and make a solid Moldvay Basic game with a Standard and Advanced game for a large user base that supports Deep Immersionist/Exploratory/Sandbox, Gamist/Process Sim agenda (AD&D + 3.x) and stop trying to pretend that it is feasible to get all D&D players under one big tent (rules system). I've been involved in too many projects like this (perhaps none this difficult) whereby the vision of the project manager was clearly beyond the scope of his (any) means and everyone working on the project knew it all along and brick by brick it became only more clear (except to him). But he sold it and now has to wear it.

 

[bogmad]

Which you have to admit makes some people feel marginalized.

I'd be crazy if I said otherwise. These discussions are a pretty clear testament to that.

Instead it seems like the whole thing is very simple-minded. A bunch of people yell about how much they hate X, Y, or Z and it gets excluded/removed from the game. Pardon me if I find this approach to be sub-par.

I'd say they are putting a good bit of thought into things, they're just coming up with different conclusions than you'd like.

Except for the removal of the sorcerer and warlock classes. In that instance I think you may be spot on. I thought they could probably stop a lot of the histrionics about that by just providing some bloodlines/pacts to fit the archetypes everyone was so pissed were missing.

But then again they're supposedly going to re-introduce those at some point? I won't hold my breath but I'd like them to surprise me there and not just make them "schools"

 

[Obryn]

Yep. It says that iconic elements with legacies stretching nearly 30 years they're going to go out of their way to keep distinct and with their classic names, and that good ideas with less than ten years of implementation in the game they're not necessarily going to throw away, but they might not get treated with the same deference. I'm ok with that. It even kinda makes sense with a "best of" edition of D&D.

Oh, I absolutely understand. I'm just not going to enthusiastically hop on board for D&D: Turn Back the Clock edition. If others do, great!

It's kinda funny though how many things disgruntled 4e-ers have predicted have come true, though, isn't it? I expect more of the same over the next year, not less.

I'll be thrilled if I'm wrong, and will gladly eat crow if it turns around.

-O

 

[Bedrockgames]

Sure, but how do you know what it is that you actually do or don't like or what would make it likable without analyzing it? I see a lot of people who come along and claim to be positive that their gut reaction is telling them exactly what is wrong, but then when you examine the logic of those statements it indicates that the real problems are likely to be somewhere else. If game designers simple-mindedly go by the letter of that feedback they fail. It helps to actually get to the bottom of one's objections (particularly) but preferences in general. I don't care a lot about applying RPG theory to my PLAY, but in terms of looking at why some things are more or less fun/acceptable to me its a very powerful tool. I am not seeing any sign that it has been employed WRT to DDN design. Instead it seems like the whole thing is very simple-minded. A bunch of people yell about how much they hate X, Y, or Z and it gets excluded/removed from the game. Pardon me if I find this approach to be sub-par.

Iguess what I am saying is i think these debates tend to obfuscate rather than clarify the real problem, because by and large they are about two sides trying to win. If given a choice between going with that info and going with peopes very basic reactions of liking or not liking something, I would take the later.

In terms of rpg theory. Which one do you propose we use?

 

[thecasualoblivion]

We've been having a really good discussion similar to this thread going on over at the WotC forums:

http://community.wizards.com/go/thr...The_Main_Problem_of_DDN._And_A_History_Lesson

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Iguess what I am saying is i think these debates tend to obfuscate rather than clarify the real problem, because by and large they are about two sides trying to win. If given a choice between going with that info and going with peopes very basic reactions of liking or not liking something, I would take the later.

In terms of rpg theory. Which one do you propose we use?

It isn't some sort of zero-sum game where I win and thus you have to lose, unless you define your goals as the antithesis of mine. If you can entertain solutions that also include the elements that will work for me then we can BOTH WIN. Thus in no way, shape, or form do I see what I've trying to do as divisive or aimed at anyone not getting what they want.

You can of course propose any theory or opinion you want alternative to mine, that's fine. It just has to be a useful basis on which we can progress to mutually achieving all of our goals. As soon as the result comes up "in order for me to get what I want you must be denied what you want" (and vice-versa of course) then we're at an impasse. I have suggested there are 3 things that are important to me. I'm not even stating that I have to get 100% of the version of these things I want, but it has to be reasonably close:

1) consistent basic class mechanics- IE based on a standard underlying mechanism. Note that with 4e this was powers, but as we've seen there even within that particular concept there are various ways to change things up that are mostly pretty acceptable. I'll also note that the specific content of these powers or whatever they are is open to a large degree of negotiation, as is terminology, etc.

2) Narrative control elements- plot coupons and reflavorable elements that can be reasonably employed by players and DM to do things like signal putting more on the table, establishing narrative facts, and accepting challenges. I think 4e has a pretty good mix of elements, but there's both room for improvement and different ways of handling some of these things. I THINK they can be handled in such a way that they are either optional or the same mechanics can serve other agendas (IE you can remove some powers from 4e that are particularly meta-game, DDN could have optional Healing Surge mechanics).

3) Class balance- I really dislike the conceit that this doesn't matter because it is a very limiting in terms of usable archetypes within a system. For instance it would be laughable to try to implement a mid-high level non-caster who's concept was that he can compete with casters and exercise the same level of power they can. At best this was an exercise in serious hacking of both rules and table conventions. It worked in 4e, you had something approaching this type of balance and a 30th level fighter styled as an invincible opponent was no joke, he was a good match up for equal level wizards.

There could POTENTIALLY be several ways to accomplish these goals. HOWEVER I do prefer established proven techniques over ones which basically amount to "designers have failed at employing this technique over and over, but this time will be different". Obviously if Mike Mearls decides to try to make Vancian casters balance with 'martial dice' fighters (for example) my response is "that never worked, I doubt it will now", but equally I'll try it when it is presented and judge based on the results. Likewise if there were a design that included encounter and/or daily powers for martial PCs I'd expect you'd have an equally open mind.

 

[Bedrockgames]

But what he is saying is he doesn't like the aedu. Period. The mechanics themselves what he said are a problem for him. Trying to find out why to arrive at a compromise isn't going to work.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

But what he is saying is he doesn't like the aedu. Period. The mechanics themselves what he said are a problem for him. Trying to find out why to arrive at a compromise isn't going to work.

Sure it will if what he doesn't like is the RESULT the way things are, but you can still achieve what he wants with a system like that, it can be different in many ways and still please me, but otherwise the argument works both ways. If I just hunker down and say "what I like is AEDU just like 4e!" then we're done talking. Frankly I don't NEED to have a different mechanic from that, so what I'm already doing is saying "OK, I have what I wanted in 4e with this, but sure, lets see if we can take the features of AEDU that are essential to me, and we can tinker with that and make something that works for both of us". Again, he's got to agree he can at least TRY to figure that out. I don't get why so many people insist that the people on MY side are just going to have to give in. Its a 2-way street and if their answer is "why should we bother, we'll just play some other game that does what we want" then bingo you have our answer too! DDN MUST BE HALFWAY in some fashion, you don't get to have any showstoppers, none.

 

[GX.Sigma]

3) Class balance

I think everyone wants that. That's not in conflict with anything.

2) Narrative control elements- plot coupons and reflavorable elements that can be reasonably employed by players and DM to do things like signal putting more on the table, establishing narrative facts, and accepting challenges. I think 4e has a pretty good mix of elements, but there's both room for improvement and different ways of handling some of these things. I THINK they can be handled in such a way that they are either optional or the same mechanics can serve other agendas (IE you can remove some powers from 4e that are particularly meta-game, DDN could have optional Healing Surge mechanics).

That sounds like the perfect kind of stuff for optional rules. That's not the kind of game that I usually want to run, but I'm totally down with including this. (Out of curiosity: do you think 4e has this? If so, in what form?)

1) consistent basic class mechanics- IE based on a standard underlying mechanism. Note that with 4e this was powers, but as we've seen there even within that particular concept there are various ways to change things up that are mostly pretty acceptable. I'll also note that the specific content of these powers or whatever they are is open to a large degree of negotiation, as is terminology, etc.

Not sure what you mean here. If you mean you want every class to use the exact same mechanics (ala AEDU), well, that's going to be pretty hard to reconcile with the people who want each class to have a unique thing.

it would be laughable to try to implement a mid-high level non-caster who...can compete with casters...designers have failed at employing this technique over and over...if Mike Mearls decides to try to make Vancian casters balance with 'martial dice' fighters (for example) my response is "that never worked, I doubt it will now"

Have you tried the playtest recently? In my experience (and from a skim through the rules) Fighters are way more powerful than Wizards.

 

[n00bdragon]

Have you tried the playtest recently? In my experience (and from a skim through the rules) Fighters are way more powerful than Wizards.

Power has almost nothing to do with the amount of damage you can deal. Most of the power in D&D comes with the ability to solve problems. Monsters are one type of problem, but they have many solutions. Dealing damage is one way to deal with one problem. If that's all you can do then you are a one-trick pony if that one problem is the only problem you ever face.