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

[Bedrockgames]

I don't follow. Is this an argument that taking into account how much punishment the PCs can take in a day isn't necessary because Ravenloft didn't care? That sounds more like a knock against Ravenloft than an argument for copying it.

Ravenloft was am incredible module. But DEFcon is right, part of the thrill was how differently it played depending on the party, which in my opinion is a good thing. When I run or play a module I dont want it to supply the same level of challenge to different parties. If you have no clerics and delve into a vampire's castle, it ought to be a greater chalenge.

 

[mudbunny]

D&D has *always* been based around the assumption of a balanced party composition, including damage, control and healing. It would be nigh on impossible for WotC to balance adventures for every possible mix of pace of play and party composition.

The module writers won't know exactly the party composition or the pacing that the given group will use. However, they can easily, with the data and expectations provided by WotC, figure out what *most* of the groups will use and use that as a base assumption, and vary how they design the adventure from there depending on the feeling that they want to impart throughout the module.

 

[DEFCON 1]

D&D has *always* been based around the assumption of a balanced party composition, including damage, control and healing. It would be nigh on impossible for WotC to balance adventures for every possible mix of pace of play and party composition.

The module writers won't know exactly the party composition or the pacing that the given group will use. However, they can easily, with the data and expectations provided by WotC, figure out what *most* of the groups will use and use that as a base assumption, and vary how they design the adventure from there depending on the feeling that they want to impart throughout the module.

Exactly. Obryn's concern seemed to be (from what I gathered) whether the range between 5E's lowest of lows up through the highest of highs because of all the various modules you could possibly use... would make the game too wide for the use of a single middle-ground assumption in adventure writing. But because I think the modules that are being designed are giving more of a breadth of options, rather than a height (IE moar power!)... regardless of the combination any particular table uses, it will still remain within striking distance of a middle-ground that an adventure writer could use when creating adventures for the game.

Basically, the worry is whether there will be a CharOp-ed, min-maxed arrangement of game modules that could "break" the game when using published adventures. My suspicion is that this is being taken into account and is not something we as players or others as adventure writers will need to be overly concerned with. Standard game assumptions and XP budgets will probably work out fine because I think WotC recognizes this potential issue and is being vigilant in making sure it doesn't happen.

 

[SkidAce]

3E was the first time I ran across D&D where different groups were more or less playing the same game. Prior to that, you never knew what sort of house rules you were likely to encounter, and I've never run across someone who "plays by the books" - not even me, who tries to toe pretty close to the line (and trying to move away from that, damn rules).

"must spread xp around"

Same here.

It seemed it was even expected. While I was being taught to play the DM was saying "oh and you might change this if you ever DM" etc .etc.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

D&D has *always* been based around the assumption of a balanced party composition, including damage, control and healing. It would be nigh on impossible for WotC to balance adventures for every possible mix of pace of play and party composition.

The module writers won't know exactly the party composition or the pacing that the given group will use. However, they can easily, with the data and expectations provided by WotC, figure out what *most* of the groups will use and use that as a base assumption, and vary how they design the adventure from there depending on the feeling that they want to impart throughout the module.

This isn't a concern with 4e.

However, I must say, I don't think the sort of pacing DEFCON1 is talking about is all that big a deal. Regardless of which rooms you go through in what order or with what rests in between Ravenloft is still basically the same sort of adventure, and that's true of practically any module worth the name. Not that it is impossible for people to use modules for really different modes of play, but they're going to be subverting the module writer's intent heavily if they do.

I guess I'm weird too, but my experience with D&D of all variations has been that the vast majority of groups play with basically stock rules. I've seen a few really mild house rules and some "you can't use that, its horribly unbalanced" once in a while in AD&D, but the game really has a pretty strong concept of how play is going to go. Most actual groups out there are also not RPG theorists, they have no real grasp of play styles and whatever, they just know to try to have fun and generally fit every game into whatever arbitrary style they've learned to enjoy. Consequently I have very many doubts that any sort of modularity in DDN is all that beneficial. I think most groups will just either blindly "use everything", or they'll just blindly choose the options that are as close as possible to whatever they were playing before.

I just don't see the point.

 

[DEFCON 1]

I think most groups will just either blindly "use everything", or they'll just blindly choose the options that are as close as possible to whatever they were playing before.

I just don't see the point.

That *is* the point.

If you played 4E and loved 4E and wished WotC still supported it with material for 4E... the fact that 5E can be built fairly well to match it, means 4E is now "being supported". You can use 5E materials (like adventures and whatnot) IN your 4E game with a bit of finagling. Or if you don't want to do that finagle... you use 5E to build a recreation of 4E rules, and then use the material as-is. You thus get what you want... new material to be used with 4E or a 4E clone. *

* or whichever previous ruleset you enjoy

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

That *is* the point.

If you played 4E and loved 4E and wished WotC still supported it with material for 4E... the fact that 5E can be built fairly well to match it, means 4E is now "being supported". You can use 5E materials (like adventures and whatnot) IN your 4E game with a bit of finagling. Or if you don't want to do that finagle... you use 5E to build a recreation of 4E rules, and then use the material as-is. You thus get what you want... new material to be used with 4E or a 4E clone. *

* or whichever previous ruleset you enjoy

Yeah, I think my point is that most people aren't going to be able to figure out what it is that makes the game they like suitable to them.

Beyond that I don't think you can simply graft rules onto a core and produce a given game experience, but that's a separate point. DDN as it is currently for instance isn't even close to reproducing the features of 4e that I consider valuable. According to my first point it probably doesn't even matter if I'm right about that, lol.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Yeah, I think my point is that most people aren't going to be able to figure out what it is that makes the game they like suitable to them.

If the people sitting at the table can't, what makes you think that a few writers at WotC who know nothing about them can?

 

[Bedrockgames]

Most actual groups out there are also not RPG theorists, they have no real grasp of play styles and whatever, they just know to try to have fun and generally fit every game into whatever arbitrary style they've learned to enjoy. .

Frankly i have seen more tables ruined by rpg theories than by just trying to have fun. I think these people are onto something.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

If the people sitting at the table can't, what makes you think that a few writers at WotC who know nothing about them can?

Ah, well, the point IMHO is make a single strong game with clear goals. DDN is a giant muddle of "be everything to everyone", and the question is will anyone end up with something they prefer? No doubt SOMEONE will, but is this exercise really worth doing? Might for instance WotC be better off to just sell reprints of 1e stuff and 2e stuff, etc and maybe even potentially put out some revisions/supplements of the most popular stuff? Why for instance end support forever for games like 3e and 4e which clearly have active fan bases and try to insist that they have to play some variation of DDN that is a compromise solution they still have to figure out how to customize to their preferences, a job they are ill-equipped for?

Frankly i have seen more tables ruined by rpg theories than by just trying to have fun. I think these people are onto something.

No argument from me on that. OTOH if you give someone DDN that is supposed to 'play however you want' then aren't you pretty much saying to them "hey, you're going to have to reflect on what you like and how you play before this is likely to work for you". Isn't it better if they give me 4e and you 1e, and some other people 3.5e? Clearly its easy enough for them to reprint all these things, so what gives? I'm lost on the need for another edition of D&D, unless they want to try something completely new.