|
|
Post by vladtolenkov on Apr 19, 2012 11:22:03 GMT -6
I was just listening to the D&D Podcast Wizards put out. When asked what the Core rules for D&D Next would look like Mike Mearls made a comparison to the 1981 Basic D&D Boxed set with the acknowledgement that the classes would be more like revised versions of the classic AD&D classes. The idea is to keep the core rules very straightforward and simple so you can then add on whatever fiddly bits you like.
Those fiddly bits will likely be a melange of things from across all the various editions.
Also, miniatures are once again totally optional.
|
|
|
|
Post by Sean Michael Kelly on Apr 19, 2012 11:43:39 GMT -6
So in other words, it'll be a clone of Labyrinth Lord. :-D
|
|
monk
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Posts: 237
|
Post by monk on Apr 19, 2012 13:43:34 GMT -6
Too bad Proctor can't sue them! haha
|
|
3d6
Level 3 Conjurer
Posts: 62
|
Post by 3d6 on Apr 19, 2012 14:01:33 GMT -6
So in other words, it'll be a clone of Labyrinth Lord. :-D ;D ;D lol. I mean literally, I just laughed out loud sitting here when I read that. This is interesting. We'll see what happens. |
|
|
|
Post by geoffrey on Apr 19, 2012 14:07:59 GMT -6
If WotC's next version of D&D is essentially Labyrinth Lord with the Advanced Edition Companion, I'd be a very happy man. Dan Proctor could rest content in the knowledge that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.  |
|
|
|
Post by vladtolenkov on Apr 20, 2012 0:59:01 GMT -6
Yes. Exactly! Which isn't too far from OD&D with Supplements!
|
|
|
|
Post by James Maliszewski on Apr 20, 2012 4:57:44 GMT -6
If WotC's next version of D&D is essentially Labyrinth Lord with the Advanced Edition Companion We should be so lucky! My feeling remains that, while I have no reason to doubt the sincerity of those involved in wanting to return D&D to its "roots," various forces will conspire against its taking a form most old schoolers would recognize. The end result may very well be closer to the game's origins than the current edition, but it'll still be a long way away from Moldvay, let alone Holmes or the LBBs. The clones have nothing to fear. |
|
|
|
Post by llenlleawg on Apr 20, 2012 7:38:04 GMT -6
My feeling remains that, while I have no reason to doubt the sincerity of those involved in wanting to return D&D to its "roots" various forces will conspire against its taking a form most old schoolers would recognize. The end result may very well be closer to the game's origins than the current edition, but it'll still be a long way away from Moldvay, let alone Holmes or the LBBs. I suspect you are right. I think there is a real and sincere desire on the part of many at WotC to have the game called D&D be recognizably the same game played, with minor variations, from Greyhawk through the second edition, and which, for most people in actual play, looked likely 90-95% like Labyrinth Lord + AEC, even for those who, like me, started with Holmes, added the supplements and articles from the Dragon, and then the AD&D books, while never really changing from what I came to discover was OD&D play style with AD&D books, character classes, spell lists, etc. There really is too much invested, financially and morally, in the project since 2008 (and even since 2000) to make that sort of return happen in an obvious and recognizable way. |
|
|
|
Post by James Maliszewski on Apr 20, 2012 7:42:22 GMT -6
There really is too much invested, financially and morally, in the project since 2008 (and even since 2000) to make that sort of return happen in an obvious and recognizable way. Just so. I don't see how WotC can simultaneously return to the game's roots while not alienating the audience they've built up since 2000. They're, frankly, in a bind and I don't envy them the job they've set before themselves. |
|
|
|
Post by vladtolenkov on Apr 20, 2012 9:51:02 GMT -6
As part of their initial playtesting process they've been playing every version of the game that's been released. The goal in doing this is to identify the core elements that everybody identifies as D&D and then make the core game about that. Then everything else is an add on to make the game you want to play.
Interestingly, Mearls also commented that as they've gone forward with researching this stuff the particular edition people said they preferred often didn't correspond with their particular playstyle. So you get lots of folks playing a version of D&D that heavily supports tactical miniatures play who are really story focused players and conversely I'd imagine you see folks playing a 2nd edition style game with all the "epic fantasy" tropes who are actually just interested in killing things and getting rich.
Their solution is to create a version of D&D whose rules support whatever playstyle you have.
I would agree with James that this is going to be extremely difficult. They are definitely on dangerous ground but also potentially fruitful ground.
We'll see.
|
|
|
|
Post by vladtolenkov on Apr 20, 2012 9:54:44 GMT -6
There is also the fact that Mearls isn't the lead designer. Monte Cook is the lead and I've been less excited by his comments about D&D Next that what I hear from Mearls.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mushgnome on Apr 20, 2012 10:03:53 GMT -6
There is also the fact that Mearls isn't the lead designer. Monte Cook is the lead and I've been less excited by his comments about D&D Next that what I hear from Mearls. Wait, Monte Cook and Mike Mearls are designing the next D&D??? I love both those guys' work!  |
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Apr 20, 2012 13:26:12 GMT -6
The problem with "returning to their roots" is that not everyone agrees where the roots begin. Younger gamers often think that 3E is "the good old days" and older folks harken back to AD&D or OD&D instead.
They say that they are playing all versions of the game and I take them at their word. I just hope that they can see the big picture and realize what are the best elements of each edition. I'd like to see a game that takes the best of all but allows me not to use parts I don't like.
Fingers crossed.
|
|
|
|
Post by James Maliszewski on Apr 20, 2012 13:43:00 GMT -6
The problem with "returning to their roots" is that not everyone agrees where the roots begin. Younger gamers often think that 3E is "the good old days" and older folks harken back to AD&D or OD&D instead. Therein lies the real problem: I'm not sure, outside of a vague sense of being "a game about fantasy adventuring," there's much that unites the various editions of D&D anymore. And, mechanically, the TSR and WotC era games have only a few systems in common. So what does that leave us? A brand name? I'd love to be optimistic, I really would, but I find it difficult. |
|
|
|
Post by danproctor on Apr 20, 2012 14:02:52 GMT -6
In writing Labyrinth Lord little did I know I was charting the course for D&D 5th edition! ;-)
My consulting fees must be lost in the mail somewhere.
But seriously, I agree with James. All rhetoric aside, 5e won't resemble old editions. They seem to say it is "like this version" at various points, changing which version it is "like" in order to appeal to various segments of the player base. In many ways between the various blog posts and polls, this is some of the most ham-fisted marketing we've ever seen from them. Nothing personal toward them of course, but I'm just not seeing how what they are up to is going to save D&D. I hope it does, but IMHO it isn't looking good.
|
|
|
|
Post by James Maliszewski on Apr 20, 2012 14:42:50 GMT -6
but I'm just not seeing how what they are up to is going to save D&D. I sincerely believe WotC would be better served by looking into PDF and POD options for its back catalog and using the D&D name as a banner for fantasy-themed board and video games. I find it difficult to imagine that RPGs will ever make enough money to make Hasbro happy, especially given the headaches that probably come with it. |
|
|
|
Post by llenlleawg on Apr 20, 2012 14:52:59 GMT -6
Therein lies the real problem: I'm not sure, outside of a vague sense of being "a game about fantasy adventuring" there's much that unites the various editions of D&D anymore. And, mechanically, the TSR and WotC era games have only a few systems in common. So what does that leave us? A brand name? I'd love to be optimistic, I really would, but I find it difficult. You have hit the nail on the head. I hear and read some people on the WotC boards (I know, it's probably bad for my blood pressure to engage, but I live in hope ...) who think that new editions ought to be what, by any objective standard, constitutes a new game. Said differently, if 4e and the game of the TSR era are the same game, in what sense are Chivalry & Sorcery or RuneQuest or DragonQuest or Tunnels & Trolls, etc. not D&D? While some love to toss out accusations of "nostalgia" or "sacred cows" or whatnot, the fact is that nothing is infinitely plastic. Games, like other things, have formal and material components that make them what they are, and surely "cross-playability" (beyond knowing how to play a role-playing game with dice) is one of those key elements. We have certainly seen how the SRD can be used to emulate the older mechanics, but even this does not mean that, as such, 3e and the TSR versions are cross-compatible. Even less so with 4e. So, I hope very much that the game they produce is worthy of the name Dungeons & Dragons and I hope it plays rather more like the first iterations. It is hard to see, however, that it can be anything but a new thing, neither fish nor fowl. Perhaps your suggestion of marketing other kinds of games under the D&D brand with a side business of sustaining older editions isn't so bad a future! |
|
|
|
Post by James Maliszewski on Apr 20, 2012 15:01:53 GMT -6
nothing is infinitely plastic. That's my feeling, too, but I don't work for WotC, whose RPG crew are committed to the notion that there are things that unite all the editions and that these things can be used as the foundations for a new one. Maybe my natural pessimism is simply blinding me to the obvious, I don't know. Anyway, I wish them well in their efforts and will be quite happy to be proven wrong. |
|
|
|
Post by robertsconley on Apr 20, 2012 21:50:20 GMT -6
While I can't share any details of the playtest due to the NDA. I can give some impressions.
The current version of the playtests covers what the old basic sets covered. They could polish up what they have now and have a product in my opinion.
More options are mentioned but they currently are just that more options. You could referee the current core rules as easily as any of the older edition retro clones.
There are going to be details fans of older editions will dislike. What is disliked will vary greatly from gamer to gamer. Nobody that I played with so far disagrees that it plays like older edition D&D.
I am not sure what is up with Monte's columns. Yah if I squint my eyes I can see what he talking about in the rules. But somebody is doing some major filtering when it comes to writing the rules. It is no where as radical or wacky as his columns sounds.
The current rules are their own thing but wouldn't be out of place as a retro clone.
The power curve is enormously flattened in a good way. Much more so than any other edition including OD&D. At this point it looks like the defining characteristic of this edition.
The one line stat block has return. There a good chance that adventure for this edition will work any other edition of D&D.
The playtest is not yet to the point to see how 3e and 4e fans are going to be accommodated.
If you have a chance to get on a playtest it will be worth your time.
Hope this helps.
|
|
|
|
Post by geoffrey on Apr 20, 2012 22:36:28 GMT -6
Wow, Rob. THAT is encouraging. |
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Apr 21, 2012 6:11:15 GMT -6
While I can't share any details of the playtest due to the NDA. I can give some impressions. The current version of the playtests covers what the old basic sets covered. They could polish up what they have now and have a product in my opinion. If you have a chance to get on a playtest it will be worth your time. 1. I envy you. I signed up and was accepted as a playtester but no further contact has come from WotC. I'd love to get the same look at this as you are.  2. This is encouraging. The only way that I can see that WotC can actually make everyone happy is to have a streamlined, simplified core rules set and zillions of add-on options. As soon as they integrate the options into the core rules, they begin to lose a certain faction of their target demographic. Nice to hear that they have something that theoretically could be ready to go. |
|
|
|
Post by robertsconley on Apr 21, 2012 7:45:45 GMT -6
1. I envy you. I signed up and was accepted as a playtester but no further contact has come from WotC. I'd love to get the same look at this as you are. Let me know via PM if you signed a NDA. |
|
paulg
Level 3 Conjurer
Posts: 75
|
Post by paulg on Apr 21, 2012 16:48:28 GMT -6
The one line stat block has return. Yes, please! The 4e stat blocks made my eye cross. |
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Apr 24, 2012 19:32:51 GMT -6
1. I envy you. I signed up and was accepted as a playtester but no further contact has come from WotC. I'd love to get the same look at this as you are. Let me know via PM if you signed a NDA. Hey, Rob -- been looking around on the WotC boards and it would appear that there is a "special, by invitation pre-playtest" and the general playtest. Apparently, I'm on the second list.  This is a little bit annoying, and may turn me off to the game before I even start. If I were WotC I would be interested in more folks who represent the older edition demographic, since they already have fans of the current edition.  I would have signed their NDA in a heartbeat. And it's not like I just showed up there or anything; I've been a member of the WotC boards since 2003. Grrr. |
|
|
|
Post by kesher on Apr 26, 2012 9:58:50 GMT -6
This is a quote from a recent Mike Mearls post.. I couldn't agree more, and it looks like the open playtest starts on May 24th! |
|
|
|
Post by robertsconley on Apr 26, 2012 15:49:18 GMT -6
Hey, Rob -- been looking around on the WotC boards and it would appear that there is a "special, by invitation pre-playtest" and the general playtest. Apparently, I'm on the second list. May is a bit busy for me, I can probably organize something in June for people on this board using Fantasy Grounds and/or Google+. This is a little bit annoying, and may turn me off to the game before I even start. If I were WotC I would be interested in more folks who represent the older edition demographic, since they already have fans of the current edition. I would have signed their NDA in a heartbeat. And it's not like I just showed up there or anything; I've been a member of the WotC boards since 2003. Grrr. I was lucky to get an invite so don't feel bad. But with the public playtest in May more people can get on the fun. |
|
