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

[El Mahdi]

deleted

 

[Ratskinner]

<snippage of much vaguely anti-2e-commentary>Frankly IMHO there isn't anything resembling 4e in DDN in a meaningful way.

They haven't even really touched my favorite parts of 4e...so. ::shrug::

As a fan of 2e, I don't think they are going back and grabbing the best bits from that edition, either. Although they are trying to recapture some of the freewheeling feel of that game. Which is something that I personally felt was missing from 4e.

Yep, and a baffling lack of understanding of why those of us who like 4e, do.

Presumably (hopefully), there are many different reasons to like 4e. Of course, folks who hate 4e see too much of it in D&DN, so....::shrug::

I do think that the edition war history has left them with a quandry. On the one hand, they need to design a new, modern, game. On the other hand, if they do anything too innovative, they risk failure in their "unification" goal and repeating the same PR mistakes they made with 4e (if, in fact, that's what they were.) The only thing I'm really certain of is that I don't envy their position.

A question for the both of you. Is <the thing you love about 4e> tightly married to the specific mechanics of 4e, or do you feel that <whatever that is> could be successfully reproduced with other mechanics? Do you see no hope of that happening in a 5e module?

 

[n00bdragon]

A question for the both of you. Is <the thing you love about 4e> tightly married to the specific mechanics of 4e, or do you feel that <whatever that is> could be successfully reproduced with other mechanics? Do you see no hope of that happening in a 5e module?

Of myself and of all the people I know who prefer 4e the thing they love about it is not married to the specific mechanics... it's that the mechanics are tightly married to each other. There are no hodge podge corner cases or rules within rules. To give you an example if there were a spell in 4e that filled a room with Jello that spell would not include rules for moving in the Jello or rules for drowning in the Jello, and it certainly wouldn't have a paragraph of flavor text to hunt through to tell you what effects it does have on the game.

 

[pemerton]

I'd say that it's far too soon for anybody to objectively determine that it's impossible for D&D Next to fulfill the goal of appealing to people of all editions. There simply isn't enough of the game done yet to make that kind of assumption.

I think it's reasonable, at this point, to suspect that D&Dnext will not appeal to a certain type of 4e player - to put it very crudely, the sort of 4e player who is currently posting on the "Pemertonian Scene Framing" thread.

The basis for that suspicion is that D&Dnext lacks any metagame mechanics to regulate or modulate pacing in challenge/encounter resolution, in scenario design, etc. Indead, as some of the current healnig threads have brought out, it seems at one and the same time (i) to be committed to balancing PCs acros the "adventuring day", but (ii) utterly lacking and seeminlgy actively hostile to the sorts of metagame constraints that would be necessary to achieving anything like a standard "adventuring day".

A question for the both of you. Is <the thing you love about 4e> tightly married to the specific mechanics of 4e, or do you feel that <whatever that is> could be successfully reproduced with other mechanics? Do you see no hope of that happening in a 5e module?

I'm not one of those two, but our respective posting histories make me think we have some things in common in what we like about 4e.

There are some parts of D&Dnext that I don't mind at all. Flat maths (and of course 4e is flat maths + regular scaling) - but they seem to be disrupting that with their magic item rules. A skill system based on stat checks and free descriptors (and a good thing about this is it can be approached either in an OSR way or an indie way).

But there are what seem to be fundamental elements that are at odds with me enjoying the game - namely, is approach to pacing and player resources.

In 4e all non-Martial essentials PCs have a common resource scheme: at-will, encounter and daily. And there is very strict regulation of the ability to regain resources (encounter or daily) during an encounter.

As a result, in a given encounter every player is on a roughly even footing, resource-wise: they go in with what they go in with, including dailies retained since the last extended rest,plus encounter powers. And they can't get anything more until one way or another the encounter is resolved.

When it comes to replenishing daily resources there is a lot more table variation. Some tables give players control over resting. Others give the GM control. Others (like mine) are slightly incoherently in the middle. But while different approaches here will change the play of the game, none will really break it. If it's all nova, all the time then every player can nova his/her PC. If making it through to extended rests is part of the challenge of play, every PC has a comparale suite of resources to manage in confronting that challenge.

There are some excpetions to the above.Some PCs have more daily utilities, some more encouter utilities, but the divergences there are fairly modest. Healing surge differentials are perhaps a bigger issue - in a "players control the recharges" approach, the difference in surge numbers between (say) a wizard and a paladin can become less significant.

But I still think the game more-or-less copes with this. Whereas D&Dnext is built around fundamentally (and deliberately) assymetric suites of player resources. And not only is there no metagame regulation to ensure a constant "adventuring day", it is mysterious to me where such a thing might be built in. Given this, I don't see how it will support 4e-style pacing and balance of resources across players.

If D&D Next gets the cooperation of all of us gamers, it can't fail. It will achieve the goals that have been set, and achieving those goals will prevent another split of the player base.

This is true but strikes me as tautologous. Of course if all gamers embraced the same game there would be no "split"
in the player base. But this doesn't give anyone a reason to embrace D&Dnext or any other RPG, unless they think uniformity among gamers is more important than playing a game they enjoy. And personally, at least, I don't think that.

 

[El Mahdi]

deleted

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Personally, I'd be happy to play 2e again. Anachronistic and complicated, sure, but fun. The current 5e playtest doesn't come close to matching the 2e system in my mind. And I'm a 3e player. Not a good sign for them.

It reminds me all too much of the 2e system in the sense of being a mechanical hodge-podge system. I have zero interest in that, give me the nice understandable and mechanically robust 4e AEDU default character mechanics, that WORKS. I can build on that to do other stuff if I want.

I liked Jeff Grubb's writing and presentation in 2e. I thought it was a well written game (though I wasn't fond of the overall graphic design). So, I'd be fine with a style of presentation that evoked 2e, and they may well present it that way. The mechanics and the lack of any innovation in play style turns me off.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Yeah, I think Pemerton has a good handle on at least a good chunk of what I see with DDN.

Beyond what he said I just see the mechanical framework that was set up in 4e as a good approach. It allows for a universal design where various elements of the game can be built around the common platform of class mechanics. While 4e has a lot of feats, items, powers, etc added to it, the CORE of the game is MUCH simpler and cleaner and accomplishes much more than the core 2e or 3.x rules in a given amount of material. When you add new stuff or tinker with existing stuff you don't end up with deep problems, because again you're building on a common platform. This GREATLY simplifies the DM's task for instance because it is trivial to say take a power from a class, adapt its flavor and stick it on a monster. This can be literally accomplished in 5 seconds at the table as needed without so much as a second thought. I can make up any item and with some trivial change to simply give it a different type it will work for anyone and integrate with the rules for their character's class without problems.

Nothing even faintly resembling this exists with DDN, it is a hodge podge of different elements where classes are each built off in their own universe and you have to completely reinvent the wheel if you want some other class or a creature or item to have the same effect. Its hard to overemphasize just how much mechanically is gained with "everything is a power".

So, yeah, I see no real point to DDN's mechanical design, it is nothing but regression. It offers no discernible countervailing advantage to me. I think there is a vast amount of room for movement in terms of the presentation and design of a system built along the lines of 4e's, DDN could produce a significant improvement, but instead it offers nothing, just more 1980's vintage game design. Ho hum.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I see no redundancy in my statement. However, if you're saying that my statement is true for all variables, on that I'd agree.

Also, my statement said nothing about everybody embracing D&D Next; I fully expect the majority of gamers to still prefer their original favorites.

Again, I have to agree with Pemerton here. If all we're doing is "embracing" so we can have a nice big group hug that's wonderful, but if you insist that I embrace D&D only for that reason then we aren't talking about anything to do with the game at all, DDN can be anything. I prefer to embrace what interests me. I don't reject the rest, but I have plenty of things to do besides play a DDN that isn't providing me with any better tools. If some of my friends want to run it and ask me to play I'm sure I will, but frankly most of them are still playing 3.5 or 2e, so it isn't like they're likely to run out and buy something new. WotC has got to try REALLY hard to get them interested.

My statement is about going into the process with the mindset that D&D Next's goals are impossible and therefore should be written off before the final product is complete...and as a consequence, withold sharing the benefit of one's knowledge for the benefit of the game. When it comes right down to it, we (collectively) are the system masters of D&D. We are an incredibly vast and diverse source of knowledge and experience which could be used to help perfect the game...but only if people participate, and continue to participate.

Writing D&D Next off at this point is tantamount to looking at the uncompleted girder skeleton of a building, and deciding that the building is going to be too ugly for one's preferences and unable to fufill one's needs. That is a completely illogical assumption.

Now if one had access to the blueprints, and one was proficient enough in being able to interpret such information without actually experiencing the finished building with their own senses, one could make a judgement one way or the other. But since none of us possess a blueprint of D&D Next, and to some extent that even includes the designers, it's completely illogical to make such absolute judgements concerning it. Especially judgements that state the game doesn't have what I want currently, so therefore it will never have what I want; or statements purporting the ability to read the minds or intentions of the designers. At this time, any ideas on our parts as to the absolute direction of D&D Next, or musings of what the final product will look like, are nothing but half-informed guesses at best.

Yeah, again, participation requires that there is some point to it. While it is always good to remember that DDN isn't a finished game it is LARGELY in its final form. Mike has said this in plain English and even if he hadn't I know how things are designed and produced. You don't go changing fundamental aspects of your product 2/3 of the way into development.

If I was living in a nice ranch house and someone said "here, we'll build you an even better ranch house" and 6 months later I see the frame of a 3 story tower block, then yes, I can conclude that no amount of finishing is going to make that into the thing that I would want. The idea that all we have are "half-formed guesses" is nonsensical. We have a game system that has had 2 solid years of extensive playtesting and development behind it and logically MUST go to press in another 12 months, tops, finalized. Again, read what Mike himself has said, that the mechanics of DDN are largely feature complete.

If we all contribute, D&D Next has a very good chance of accomplishing the goals set down for it; and if D&D Next accomplishes those goals it will not split the fan base further.

That does not require that everybody must embrace D&D Next for additional splitting to not happen. All it needs is cooperation, an optimistic attitude towards it (rather than choosing to be pessimistic...and that is a choice), and seeing D&D Next for what it is: for some, a new and preferred edition; for the rest, a suitable tool for use with groups that aren't unified by edition preference. It's as simple as that. No need for more edition warring. No need to repeat the fiasco of the switch from 3E to 4E. No need or cause for any angst or vitriol.

At best, unifying. At worst, neutrality.

And most importantly, no further splitting of the fan base.

Splitting of the fan base happens because some people like one thing more than another. If I like 4e and I like it more than DDN then THAT IS A SPLIT! Am I supposed to pretend for the sake of some sort of 'community spirit' that I like something that I don't like? If non-splitting doesn't require embracing the new D&D, then what DOES it mean? I don't see it AS anything, it is what it is. I will play and advocate what I like and I'll continue to have my opinion about it. Heck, the community would cease to exist if people stopped wrangling about what constitutes the correct way to RP and the 'right' game to use

It's not necessary nor predetermined that such splitting must take place, and we (collectively) have the power to ensure that doesn't happen. It would be a shame to not exercise that power, and instead choose to take a tact of purposeful negativity and refusal to contribute; especially when that's a guaranteed path to more spliting of the fan base.

Optimism and Patience right up until the final product is done are really the only logical options. If it's obvious at that time that it missed the mark, then by all means it will deserve the criticism layed upon it...but not until then, and that time is quite a ways away yet. Until then, unless one continues to participate, then one really has no right at this point to criticize. That's like someone who never votes complaining about the government.

As we are wont to say in the military: Lead, Follow, or Get out of the Way.

Yes, well, I'm leading. If you all don't want to follow then that's great. Its just pointless to tell people that disagree with you to 'get out of the way', that will accomplish zilch. You can follow me, or you can do your own thing, either is fine. The result clearly is going to be that some people don't go in your direction, get used to it! lol.

Honestly, I don't see ANY POINT AT ALL to DDN. I think the whole enterprise was ill-advised. It didn't make good strategic business sense, it isn't going to magically unify anyone, and it isn't adding any value that I can see to gaming in general since it is in no way, shape, or form innovating. I'm perfectly happy to judge the final result on its own merits, but this whole "just quiet down and follow the plan" thing you are selling? Nah, sorry, go hurd cats... lol.

 

[Obryn]

That does not require that everybody must embrace D&D Next for additional splitting to not happen. All it needs is cooperation, an optimistic attitude towards it (rather than choosing to be pessimistic...and that is a choice), and seeing D&D Next for what it is: for some, a new and preferred edition; for the rest, a suitable tool for use with groups that aren't unified by edition preference. It's as simple as that. No need for more edition warring. No need to repeat the fiasco of the switch from 3E to 4E. No need or cause for any angst or vitriol.

At best, unifying. At worst, neutrality.

And most importantly, no further splitting of the fan base.

It's not necessary nor predetermined that such splitting must take place, and we (collectively) have the power to ensure that doesn't happen. It would be a shame to not exercise that power, and instead choose to take a tact of purposeful negativity and refusal to contribute; especially when that's a guaranteed path to more spliting of the fan base.

It's good that this spirit of cooperation and camaraderie applied so well when 4e was released.

Oh wait... No it didn't.

-O

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

It's good that this spirit of cooperation and camaraderie applied so well when 4e was released.

Oh wait... No it didn't.

-O

Well, that's of course another thing. There's a sort of "sure, thanks for the chapped arse, mate" attitude left in the 4e community at this point. Blame is pointless of course, but as Obryn says, where was the community spirit 4 years ago?