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

[Garthanos]

I can't, in my mind, justify encounter based resources. I've tried. I tried looking at it like, they know that trick now so I have to use another one, but it just doesn't feel right for me at the table.

Touchy feely statements like that really are not very useful.
First encounter based doesnt necessarily mean absolutely no repeat - its trivially different to say most encounter abilities can be repeated with a penalty (see below on magic being influenced by environmental resistance), anything sentient enough to attack can most definitely be tricked. And if they can be tricked trivially they just wont survive or be useful ....

For martial types muscle fatigue or short term being winded in whatever form handled as anything other than an encounter resource is fairly silly.

Vancian casting based on the writing of Vance has no daily limit and had no concept of something being "memorized" twice (the D&D translation made less sense than the original which miss matches).

Divine casters having a daily limit? why would they care about your sleep cycle - and rather than their aide acting as a reward for pressing on in their name? it punish it? that is dumb as rocks -- ie encounter based makes more sense, as the more you do for them the more they back you.

Heck the idea of short term mental fatigue which you can meditate to remove(psionics or more mystical magic). Or spell casting which is scene dependent due to environmental resistance that snaps in to place when a spell is cast.

4e's implementation basically simplified multiple elements including the classic narrative reasons about repeat repeat repeat being boring/bad story... and left the elaboration in the hand of the players.

Arguably they could have made everything encounter based and from my point of view it would make more sense and allow more consistently predictable/controlled adventure design. And from what I hear we may get to see some module covering that option in Next.

 

[sheadunne]

Touchy feely statements like that really are not very useful.

They're the only things that are useful, because it means that if the games includes encounter based resources, I'll pass. I make my decision to play games because they're fun, not because they're logically sound or mathematically better. I play them because I like them, I do not require other people to like them. I do not like encounter based resources.

And if you read my post you'd see that I don't like daily resources either, but I've been using them for 30 years so I'll continue to use them. Everyone reaches a point where they don't want to be forced to use mechanics that don't feel good. Encounter based resources don't feel good. The end.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Touchy feely statements like that really are not very useful.
.

When I am doing playtest feedback I find the kinds of reactions like his a lot more useful than people engaging in rpg theory or trying to self analyze their own own taste. I think for a company like wotc the important data is whether or not people like. Getting someone's gut level response, rather than a more practiced and potentially postured response, is useful IMO. I think it is always handy to follow up with "why didn't you like it" but I think the initial "i like it" or "i dont like it" are the most important thing to pay attention to.

 

[Garthanos]

They're the only things that are useful, because it means that if the games includes encounter based resources, I'll pass.

Absolutist ultimatem fun for the edition that wants to attract and gather across all editions hurrah.. see how and why that should get ignored?

IF they include Dragonborn joe will leave... if they include SAVE or DIE mechanics I will leave... hopeless parade they got isnt it.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Absolutist ultimatem fun for the edition that wants to attract and gather across all editions hurrah.. see how and why that should get ignored?

IF they include Dragonborn joe will leave... if they include SAVE or DIE mechanics I will leave... hopeless parade they got isnt it.

It shouldnt be ignored, it should be weighed against other information.

 

[sheadunne]

It shouldnt be ignored, it should be weighed against other information.

Yep. Hence the desire for a modular system.

 

[Garthanos]

When I am doing playtest feedback I find the kinds of reactions like his a lot more useful than people engaging in rpg theory or trying to self analyze their own own taste.

Analysis regarding why you dont like something tends to at minimum reveal things about presentation that should be addressed and given how many places that seems to have been peoples problems wrt the latest edition it seem to be where they need to pay the most attention.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Analysis regarding why you dont like something tends to at minimum reveal things about presentation that should be addressed and given how many places seems to have been an element of the latest edition it seem to be where they need to pay the most attention.

Sure, but it can also muddy the waters when what you really need to know is what people like and what they dont. I am not saying discount the other part of it. But there is value in someone saying "look I just dont like this, and I am not even sure why, but it bothers me at a gut level". I also think there is a tendancy on these discussions, not to find greater clarity by probing peoples' deeper reasons for like or dislike of a mechanic, but to cloud things through argumentation where posters are forced into positions through lines of questioning, even if these dont accuratley reflect how they feel (they just are not as good at debate and get led by other posters).

 

[Garthanos]

Sure, but it can also muddy the waters when what you really need to know is what people like and what they dont.

To me THAT implies a lack of interest in improving things.

I also think there is a tendancy on these discussions, not to find greater clarity by probing peoples' deeper reasons for like or dislike of a mechanic, but to cloud things through argumentation where posters are forced into positions through lines of questioning, even if these dont accuratley reflect how they feel (they just are not as good at debate and get led by other posters).

The sometimes "peoples inability to describe why" in anything approaching a clear way certainly has to be accounted for...It not necessarily lines of questioning, the borrowing of lines of argument from others or maybe responding with them simply because they work as an argument can obfuscate.

 

[sheadunne]

To me THAT implies a lack of interest in improving things.

The sometimes "peoples inability to describe why" in anything approaching a clear way certainly has to be accounted for...It not necessarily lines of questioning, the borrowing of lines of argument from others or maybe responding with them simply because they work as an argument can obfuscate.

This is only an issue if you're trying to "convince" them of something. I'm not stating a fact, I'm stating a preference. You cannot argue with a preference. My preference is to not include encounter-based powers. There's not really any need to discuss why because I'm not stating a fact that encounter-based powers are bad because x, y, z. I don't think they're bad or poor game design. I just don't like them. And that's my preference.