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

[El Mahdi]

deleted

 

[Obryn]

I'd ask that you please stop reading into what I post.

...the irony of posting this right after your last post to me has caused an irony imbalance in the universe and I find myself unable to respond with the level of sarcasm it's due.

Why does it look that way?

With how the thread's going - Why don't you tell me why it looks that way to me?

-O

 

[Morrus]

[MENTION=11821]Obryn[/MENTION] and @El Mahdi, you look like you're angling for a fight. Let's not let that happen, eh? If sarcasm is your first reaction, let it slide and don't respond. Thanks!

 

[Mutus72]

Let me consult my crystal ball... D&D Next will be a failure. Two categories of D&D players: those who like 4th Edition and those who like previous editions. Both groups already have a system that meets their needs. From a player perspective, Next seems to be trying to fix a problem experienced by a very small percentage of an already niche group (that some groups can't agree on a rule system).

Who is the target audience?
Current players? We already have a system. Pathfinder is balanced and flexible enough for fans of classic play, 4th Edition is smooth enough for players who enjoy it's modern approach.
New players? Most new players are brought to the game through current players. See above.
New groups? Whole groups just starting out are rare enough they won't be able to keep this ship afloat. Much easier for them to play Guild Wars 2 or Elder Scrolls Online (or whatever) than to pick up an intimidating stack of rule books.

 

[pemerton]

the classes are NOT deliberately built on an assymetric model.

I don't think I was clear in what I meant by "assymetric".

In 4e, every class (except for Essentials martial classes) has at-will, encounter and dialy resources of roughly comparable effectiveness. There are exceptions - utilies can come in different mixes of at-will, encounter and daily, classes have different numbers of healing surges, and psionic encounter powers are a bit funky - but these differences are modest relative to the symmetry.

In D&Dnext, fighters have overwhelmingly at-will abilities. Where as wizards, for their effectiveness, rely extenisvely on their daily resources. This is the assymetry I was referring to.

The symmetry of 4e means that two different playstyles are possible - GM controls extended rest frequency, or players control extended rest frequency - and the balance of effectiveness between players won't suffer either way. Hence the game does not mandate any particular approach to the frequency of extended rests.

Conversely, the assymmtery of Next means that unless the GM enforces an "adventuring day" of more-or-less regular length (measured in XP of challenge confronted), the balance of effectiveness between classes will break down.

My concern is that, even if I wanted to play a game that mandates an adventuring day in this way - and I'm not 100% sure that I do - D&Dnext curretly does not seem to have the capacity to give effect to that mandate other than via a style of GM force that I really don't enjoy. And as I said, I can't even see where that capacity would be built into the system, because of the seeming lack of points at which metagame mechanics might gain leverage.

someone like yourself that has such an excellent grasp of 4E, and the vocabulary and intelligence to communicate such, is exactly the person needed to be supplying feedback.

While I'm hardly allergic to flattery, I think you're doing Mearls et all a disservice here. They're clever designers, and they have looked at as many games as I have, and I can all-but-guarantee have read all Ron Edwards essays too, even if they don't always admit to it!

They understand "modern"/indie RPG design. But for what I regard as fairly obvious reasons, they are trying to make a game that will not feel like a modern/indie game. I don't begrudge them that goal, either. They can do market research, I assume (although the 4e experience suggests that they're not perfect at it), and work out who their main market is.

There is a lot of evidence that this is true, especially as it's described in the original goals for D&D Next. However, you may be right that it's not feasible. None of us will truly know until this project is done.

I don't at all dispute that they have stated a goal of building "universal D&D". I just doubt that it can be done. A friend recently gave me his copy of the AD&D 2nd ed Players Handbook, and I've been reading through it for the first time. I just don't see how a single set of mechanics - particularly player resource mechanics and mechanics that allocate various forms of authority across players and GM - can deliver both the experience that that book promises (GM force at every turn) and the experience that 4e promises (GM force regulated and channelled at nearly every turn).

this: "the reason why D&Dnext has assymetric classes and a lack of mechanical enforcement of the adventuring day is obvious: it's because the designers have become allergic to overtly metagame mecahnics in the wake of the significant hostility to such mechanics in 4e.", is a massive assumption. An assumption backed up with absolutely no evidence; only opinion, incredibly weak circumstantial connections, and likely a fair amount of internal emotions. Their is absolutely no factual or logical basis to support this

I haven't followed all the date tags, so I'm not sure if your reply to me pre- or postdates the Mearls warlord tweet. I would think the decision not to include martial healing, in conjunction with a range of other information (like the way fighters and rogues are designed), counts as at least some evidence in favour of my contention.

The only entity responsible for WotC's problems with D&D is WotC.

<snip>

I find it ironic that somebody who is so ardently expressing his right to not play something they don't like (which by the way, I agree with you concerning this), is now saying that those who didn't buy 4E because they didn't prefer it caused WotC's problems.

I don't see the irony at all. Of course people have the right not to buy 4e if they don't like it. And one completely forseeable consequence of such a choice is that WotC may experience commercial problems. That's pretty much inherent to a market economy. People who choose not to purchase a firm's goods and services may cause that firm to fail.

But I'm also not sure I understand why you regard me as being in a different position with respect to D&Dnext from that which others have found themselves in in relation to 4e. They didn't like 4e, and chose not to play it. I don't really care for D&Dnext, and choose not to play it. Is it because it's a playtest that you think it's different?

You have an incredible grasp of the construct of 4E. Something very unlike the majority of people who prefer 4E but could never provide the type of pointed analysis you can as to why. In my opinion, it's a shame to not share that through the official feedback avenues, or continue to share that, even when facing the perception of not being listened to. From posts here on ENWorld, I've gotten an impression of you as someone with far more perseverence and patience than that.

<snip>

I do however think that your assistance would be very beneficial to the playtest, and I ask (not demand or expect) that you help us out.

<snip>

Your prolificness in posting about it, and the time and effort you appear to devote to it would seem to indicate otherwise. You must accomplish some seriously incredible things concerning subjects you do have attachments to.

I have a full time job. I have a family. And I have other hobbies (though fantasy RPGing is my biggest one). Playtesting is not free, for me - it would require me to spend time playing a system that I don't really enjoy.

I fill in the occasional survey, but haven't been very diligent since the spell one, which required me to trawl through page after page of 3E spells, many of which I didn't recognise from either my AD&D or my 4e experience. That survey was written so as to be virtually incomprehensible to a 4e D&D player who didn't know earlier editions (and so wouldn't even have the concept of spell levels).

As for my prolificness, I have a pretty deep (if mostly irrational!) passion for fantasy RPGing. And I care a lot about RPG mechanics. But as I said I have no special attachment to D&D as a system. I spent 19 years GMing Rolemaster (adapting material from other fantasy RPGs, especially D&D - both AD&D and 3E). I now GM 4e, but adapt material from other fantasy RPGs, including B/X and 3E D&D/d20. In the future I hope to GM Burning Wheel, adapting material from the Penumbra line of d20 modules and probably using a version of Greyhawk as my setting.

For me what I care about in D&D is primarily the story elements - what I call "gonzo fantasy". The D&D system itself is not that important to me as an RPGer, other than as an object of intellectual inquiry - 4e is in my view a great RPG, but 3E does nothing for me, and personally I couldn't imagine playing AD&D these days.

 

[pemerton]

And pemerton, let me explicitly exclude you from my complaints above. I may not always agree with you, but your contributions to the discussion have always been considerate, articulate, and full of meaty discussion

That's very kind of you to say so.

Also, what happened to your Moldvay Basic thread? It seems to have dropped off the front page!

 

[El Mahdi]

deleted

 

[El Mahdi]

deleted

 

[pemerton]

I don't know if it's pre- or post- either. I don't follow twitter at all so I'm unaware of the tweet you're referring to. Can you post it here? I'd be interested in seeing what he had to say.

From here, dated Feb 25:

*Some people asked about the warlord - the class deserves an L&L of its own, along with an update on classes in
general.

*Long and short of it is that there should be a tactical/commander guy in the game, but it might not have healing and might be a type of ftr.

*And when I say healing, think of it in terms of use X to give back hit points. There are other ways to mitigate damage or keep PCs going.​

 

[Iosue]

That's very kind of you to say so.

Also, what happened to your Moldvay Basic thread? It seems to have dropped off the front page!

I'm putting on the finishing touches of one Monster of a post. It'll be bumped soon!