|
Post by Finarvyn on Jun 3, 2012 5:31:43 GMT -6
Good Lord. Mithril chain?Adamantine plate? People are thinking about those during chargen? I am not sure if it is the AC system that is broken or the current game zeitgeist itself. If you read the playtest doc "how to play" page 17 you'll find that they list Mithril Chain (cost 2,500 GP) on the list of armor. They also have Dragon Scale (5,000 GP) and Adamantine (15,000 GP) on the list. I assume that they don't intent for starting characters to have this stuff but are building a scale for later expansion, or maybe some of these things can be found in the Gygax playtest module. Does anyone truly believe they will remotely succeed at a task which seems paradoxical from the get-go? If D&DNext was a stock market product I wouldn't be putting on any shares just yet. Believe they will, or believe that they have a decent shot of it? I believe they have a decent shot, or I wouldn't be bothering to look at the playtest docs. In fact, having read what they have created so far I'm even more encouraged by the whole thing. The playtest doc doesn't thrill the 4E types, but I wouldn't expect that it would. The key is "does it seem playable to the OD&D/AD&D folks." If the answer is "no" then game over. To me, the answer so far is "yes" so they can continue. As they add new (and optional) systems to the rules to cater to the later edition folks, I will probably use less and less of it but will be interested from a design standpoint. At the end, I will get to pick which elements to bring into my game and which ones to ignore. If WotC can do this, they have accomplished their main objective. But the key goes back to that core rules set. If they started with a 4E-style game they would lose all of the old-timers. They haven't done that. So far there are some quirky parts to the rules, but nothing I'd call a "deal breaker." 1) Monster stat blocks are too long for my taste, but are a lot shorter than the 3E/4E model. They remind me more of AD&D/2E, which I can tolerate. 2) Inflated PC stats aren't to my taste, either, but I can get over this as long as characters don't start there. I would have some control over how fast they improve stats if I wanted. 3) Hit points and healing rates are really inflated, compared to what I'm used to playing. Of course, the totals are higher for both players and monsters so the overall effect is more book-keeping but probably not much else. This really requires that I train my brain to reimagine what a hit point represents, but probably is another thing I get get over. Nothing I see in the core rules is so bad that I just couldn't play it. This is very different from some of the elements of the 3E/4E rules sets, so I see it as an improvement and shows that there is a decent chance that I could enjoy the final product. Just my two coppers.
|
|
vargr1105
Level 3 Conjurer
Cymek Lord filled with hatred for Mankind
Posts: 68
|
Post by vargr1105 on Jun 3, 2012 8:44:36 GMT -6
Right here on ODD74 our moderator, Finarvyn, has posted one of the most elegant and useful spell point systems I've ever seen for OD&D. And I've tried quite a few over the years. Personally, I think that the fire-and-forget system is okay, but often too limiting. Probably an issue for another thread, but seems to me that if you know a spell but can't use it because you didn't happen to memorize it that day you lose a certain fun of being a magic-user. You get the DM who puts two magically locked doors in a dungeon, knowing that the mage might memorize one Knock spell but probably not two. Where can I find this elegant point system? I would really like to take a gander at it. The playtest doc doesn't thrill the 4E types, but I wouldn't expect that it would. With all due respect to those persons, who cares about them? They certainly do not seem to give two figs about us, for the most part. The key is "does it seem playable to the OD&D/AD&D folks." If the answer is "no" then game over. Even if it is playable to the OD&D/AD&D crowd, would the significance be that great? We already have the OGL and several retroclones for OD&D/BD&D/AD&D. I don't see a new edition that caters to our tastes really improving anything. Unless you are an OSR player/GM that happens to live near a high-density gamer area and D&DNext also seduces the non-OD&D crowd, thus increasing your pool of potential gaming partners...what will change? At the end, I will get to pick which elements to bring into my game and which ones to ignore. If WotC can do this, they have accomplished their main objective. Yes, it will be interesting to see if the D&DNext development team manages to beat the OSR creativity of the last few years and how the product fares against the newest professional productions of the OSR crowd. For example, I was very impressed with the Swords & Wizardry Core Rules book, it's a masterpiece of presentation and easy reading/learning. You learn about the history of the game just by reading it. When it presents you with several optional systems to resolve the same issue it tells you where they came from and what their effects will be in the game. And the enormous quantity of OSR material available for free in PDFs, forums or blogs and many buy-products priced just to cover the cost of production mean the stakes for WOTC to get this crowd to part with their money (in a recession, no less) are placed very high indeed, perhaps higher than ever in the history of the game at large. I had not seen something that impressive since the Rules Cyclopedia, and when I read that it was already old. But the key goes back to that core rules set. If they started with a 4E-style game they would lose all of the old-timers. I am surprised by the fact they are (apparently) considering our crowd a sizable market share. WOTC must be getting really desperate to knock on the doors of the people they've been "throwing overboard" for the past decade. Nothing I see in the core rules is so bad that I just couldn't play it. This is very different from some of the elements of the 3E/4E rules sets, so I see it as an improvement and shows that there is a decent chance that I could enjoy the final product. Meanwhile, from what I've read the 4E crowd is whining like the crustiest of curmudgeons in a manner that just screams "you kids get of my lawn!" about the horrible changes the new game is bringing. Ah...the sweet, delicious irony. ;D Why, the gall of those people! Don't they know that newer is, by definition, better and superior? Why do those gaming neanderthals cling so bitterly to their old, surpassed, obsolete and obviously no-longer-fun edition? They should get on with the times and "evolve", abandon their primitive ways. Everyone else is doing it...why don't they? Oh I know. It's an age-related issue. They play an older edition than D&DNext so they must be old. That's it, they are all just old and sour. Why b*tch and moan so much about it? Copies of their favorite now-useless game are still around. They can still buy them Ebay and stuff. I better stop before the sarcasm makes me implode If D&DNext follows the path you are hoping it does, the edition and flame wars are going to be a beauty to watch. But this time some people might find out what they thought was good for goose is good for the gander also. But they might discover being on the other side of the fence is not so fun, and learn some humility while they are at it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 3, 2012 8:55:38 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by darkling on Jun 3, 2012 11:24:30 GMT -6
You know, I can't figure out where all this negativity is coming from. I almost expect it, though still find it pretty inexcusable, over on the WOTC board or a couple other places on the net. But we gather here to talk about the merits of OD&D. Nothing in D&DNext is going to alter or interfere with our ability to play our edition of choice, so why this unseemly sarcasm? And why wish ill upon fellow gamers? It seems ill spirited and ultimately counterproductive. New games bring new ideas, new gamers, and new fluff. And no one has to incorporate any of this. No one has to even pay attention to it. But sometimes there will be at least one or two things (or if you are lucky, an entire system) that are good ideas on their own or lead to good ideas. An example: Personally, I think that the fire-and-forget system is okay, but often too limiting. Probably an issue for another thread, but seems to me that if you know a spell but can't use it because you didn't happen to memorize it that day you lose a certain fun of being a magic-user. You get the DM who puts two magically locked doors in a dungeon, knowing that the mage might memorize one Knock spell but probably not two. There is a potential answer to this problem in D&DNext. I still haven't decided whether I like it, or if I will use it in my games, but it inspires thought. From my understanding of the playtest materials, prepared arcane spells are basically 'hung' spells. Spells that you have set to go off on a hair trigger. However, arcane spells can also be cast as rituals. So let's say you are barreling through a hallway with a troll on your side, you reach a locked door. In this case, you had better have Knock prepared and ready to go, or a thief that can pick the lock. However, let's say the party comes upon the Arcane Locked tomb of a dead king. There is no physical lock to pick and the wizard did not prepare a copy of Knock. At this point he can sit down for 10 minutes or so and expend valuable ritual components to open the tomb without causing everyone to pack it up and head back to the inn to wait until he can sleep and re-memorize. It keeps the game flowing and makes the magic user feel useful (plus makes the party make the strategic decision of whether ritual components or time is the more precious resource). And like I say, not everyone will like that. I am not sure I do. But no one is telling me that I have to. It's a new idea that I can take or leave as I chose (which applies to the whole of D&DNext). But it doesn't affect me if I don't want it to. I can't see the appeal in mocking it for existing.
|
|
|
Post by darkling on Jun 4, 2012 6:18:02 GMT -6
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 4, 2012 10:43:13 GMT -6
Interesting read. I have no major issues with the 5th ed. material I've read so far. That said, I find this article encouraging as well.
|
|
|
Post by llenlleawg on Jun 5, 2012 1:29:37 GMT -6
For what it's worth, WotC has modified its rules about playtesting online. From the new FAQ:
Can I run an online game via email, Skype, Google Hangout or a play-by-post forum?
Yes, you may run online games via Skype, Google Hangout or play-by-post forum provided you to do not post or upload any transcripts from your playtest, upload any playtest materials and make sure that all members of your group have signed up to playtest through the official playtest sign up process.
So, if you haven't been able to take part in the playtest because there are no local groups available or because your normal gaming group meets online, now you can!
|
|
|
Post by kesher on Jun 5, 2012 12:24:36 GMT -6
Well, that's encouraging! Also, recent post by MM about the DM's Guide in the play test materials adds, imo, to the clarifying process of what they're trying to get at.
|
|
|
Post by kesher on Jun 5, 2012 12:37:17 GMT -6
Awesome, I say. And also, see, everything goes back to WHFRP...
|
|
|
Post by darkling on Jun 5, 2012 21:29:27 GMT -6
Y'know there was a phrase in that Mearls' article that always gives me a little trouble: "player-controlled rules"
Really I think that this is one of the biggest problems with the modern era of D&D: rules take power away from the DM. The take the place of DM rulings and once there becomes this set way of doing something, then that is what players expect and to an extent enforce on their DM.
However, without rules you do come to the 'problem' where every group is sort of playing their own game. Players don't know exactly what they are getting into, tactics that worked in one game might work quite differently if the DM makes a different ruling on an unclear piece of text.
It's going to be a hard tightrope to walk, especially when the vast majority of their consumers look at things from the player side and scaling back player control is probably not going to fly well.
|
|
vargr1105
Level 3 Conjurer
Cymek Lord filled with hatred for Mankind
Posts: 68
|
Post by vargr1105 on Jun 6, 2012 0:20:39 GMT -6
Y'know there was a phrase in that Mearls' article that always gives me a little trouble: "player-controlled rules" Really I think that this is one of the biggest problems with the modern era of D&D: rules take power away from the DM. The take the place of DM rulings and once there becomes this set way of doing something, then that is what players expect and to an extent enforce on their DM. What part of Dungeon MASTER don't they understand, specifically? I would consider quite rude for players to "enforce" anything about a campaign someone else had all the trouble laboring over for their enjoyment. Unless the pay the DM a salary or something, then he's an employer. Polite and humble suggestions? Yes. Enforcements? Show them the door. However, without rules you do come to the 'problem' where every group is sort of playing their own game. A group "playing its own game" in the manner it finds more enjoyable is supposed to be a problem? Players don't know exactly what they are getting into, tactics that worked in one game might work quite differently if the DM makes a different ruling on an unclear piece of text. That is one of the reasons why we humans have mouths, ears and brains. The players and GMs can talk and listen to each other to know what peculiarities are rulings will be present in the game. This way everyone knows what they are getting to. It's going to be a hard tightrope to walk, especially when the vast majority of their consumers look at things from the player side and scaling back player control is probably not going to fly well. Sounds like you are talking about people which are about to go into rehab. (sorry, my sarcasm got the better of me again)
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Jun 6, 2012 7:42:37 GMT -6
Y'know there was a phrase in that Mearls' article that always gives me a little trouble: "player-controlled rules". I've been pondering this and can come up with a couple of interpretations. 1. The player trumps the DM. 2. The players rules trump WotC. I'm not sure that this quote was intended to imply that the players get to somehow overrule the power of the DM. It's possible that he means that each gaming group gets to pick from a master set of rules and customize their own campaign the way they like it.
|
|
|
Post by darkling on Jun 6, 2012 10:47:40 GMT -6
From context I think he was talking about overruling the DM: And here is what I took that to mean. Take 3rd or 4th edition (maybe 1e and 2e too, I don't know, I jumped straight from Basic to 3e); there are canonical rules that are given to the players in the player's hand book. So if I open a 3e PHB, and here I will link to the SRD to give an example: www.dandwiki.com/wiki/SRD:Climb_Skill; I see tables, given to the players in advance of playing, telling them what the DCs are to do certain things and even what modifiers can apply. These then seem to be intended by WOTC to be universal rules, a fundamental part of the system. Now DMs obviously have the ability to override any of that, but many players will go into it with the expectation that they won't. All this sort of thing does is create the possibility for DM/player tensions. Why is this in the player's book at all? Something similar would be fine in the DM guide as an example to follow, but putting it in player hands can lead to them feeling entitled to it (fourth edition even went so far as to begin putting magic items in the player book..which just blows my mind). Compare the above to the Rules Cyclopedia: I don't think you will find that language much in the past two editions of the game. The DM has moved more into the position of referee or administrator than judge. Which I personally think is a shame and which Mearls implies is something that they will be fixing in D&DNext. However, I can see why they went that way in the first place. A decade ago when I was just starting out DMing, it was convenient after a fashion to be able to ask players what their skills did. It removes a burden and lets you focus on other things. And from the player side it gives you a firm foothold and understanding from game to game (you can look at your abilities, know the DC, and estimate your chance of success before you even ask the DM if you can do it). The problem is that at a certain point it creeps over the line of boon and into the territory of curse and strife. So I am a fan of the suggested compromise of putting all that stuff into a DMs guide. The neophyte can check a table, the master of the game can make an adjudication, and the players can worry about playing the game rather than butting in on running it. And as a side effect it should also mean that we can dispense with a lot of the lawyery text and leave more things to DM discretion which is good all around.
|
|
|
Post by kesher on Jun 6, 2012 12:24:58 GMT -6
Darkling, I agree with every word you just wrote; that was my interpretation of "player-controlled rules", too.
|
|
eris
Level 4 Theurgist
Posts: 161
|
Post by eris on Jun 6, 2012 12:33:49 GMT -6
Darkling, I agree with every word you just wrote; that was my interpretation of "player-controlled rules", too. Well, yes, I did too, but I also noted that he was saying that these were not player-controlled rules, but guidelines. What I took from that was that they are moving away from rules back toward quidelines...ie. from rules to rulings...which suits me just fine.
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Jun 6, 2012 14:06:50 GMT -6
fourth edition even went so far as to begin putting magic items in the player book..which just blows my mind Hey, now somehow I missed that. That's quite a shift in philosophy and I hadn't realized that 4E had stuff like this in the PH. Clearly I should read it better....
|
|
|
Post by aldarron on Jun 11, 2012 9:52:17 GMT -6
....And I really, really don't like tying Saves to Ability Scores. Not the only thing I'm not caring for in the new edition. Just a personal pet peave. ;D When Dave Arneson created ability scores, one of the first uses he put them to was for saving throws. Not saying that ought to make anyone like the idea, one way or the other, but but I am saying it aint nothin new.
|
|
jasmith
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Posts: 316
|
Post by jasmith on Jun 11, 2012 15:56:23 GMT -6
....And I really, really don't like tying Saves to Ability Scores. Not the only thing I'm not caring for in the new edition. Just a personal pet peave. ;D When Dave Arneson created ability scores, one of the first uses he put them to was for saving throws. Not saying that ought to make anyone like the idea, one way or the other, but but I am saying it aint nothin new. Tying the saves to ability scores, delimits the action in ways I find infelicitous. It's worse, if they're tied to a specific score. I see no reason that every Save vs. Poison should be about the PC's Con. Maybe the PC snatched their hand away before the spider's fangs penetrated their flesh. Thus, dex. Maybe the PC called upon their god and saved by sheer faith. Wis. Maybe the PC called upon the name of the demon lord of spiders and was heard. Int. If it's not tied to the abilities, then a fighter is more likely to be able to save by other means than that of relying on con every single time and "shrugging it off!" If saves are tied to abilities, but more loosely, then it will behoove the Cleric to try and rely on Faith, to save against anything and everything. If allowed to do so, I can see the cleric having quite the edge over other classes. It's easy to apply the idea of Divine Intervention to just about any "save." Which, might be desirable in some campaigns. So, I choose not to use abilities for saving throws.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 11, 2012 19:14:16 GMT -6
Exalt for that. I've been trying to think of a way to say something similar and you've stated my thoughts perfectly.
|
|
|
Post by kesher on Jun 12, 2012 10:23:17 GMT -6
So, Jason, I read this twice, and I'm still not sure I understand your argument. You seem to be saying that, iyo, tying saves to abilities limits saving throws in way you don't like, especially if it's along the lines of "You've been poisoned---save vs. Con! But aren't classic saving throws even more arbitrarily limiting, generating numbers depending on level and class? I actually see your example as being exactly WHY I like the idea of using abilities---it encourages player creativity, and lets them play to their strengths, which, ime, tends to be more fun. I mean, sure, a cleric could use Wisdom (if that's what you're suggesting) to claim their faith saves them, but it's up to the DM, after a time or two of that, to perhaps respond with a godly voice in their head saying "I help those who help themselves!" I'm not sure how the fighter is more likely to be able to save, unless you mean simply because, classically, saving throws get easier as you rise in level...
|
|
jasmith
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Posts: 316
|
Post by jasmith on Jun 12, 2012 11:48:28 GMT -6
So, Jason, I read this twice, and I'm still not sure I understand your argument. You seem to be saying that, iyo, tying saves to abilities limits saving throws in way you don't like, especially if it's along the lines of "You've been poisoned---save vs. Con! Its James. The poison save was merely a convenient example. Nothing "special" about it. What saves as ability scores further delimit, is the action. But aren't classic saving throws even more arbitrarily limiting, generating numbers depending on level and class? I never used the word "arbitrary." If you're arguing that TSR era saves are arbitrary, then I disagree. There's also nothing arbitrary about basing the saves on ability scores. Quite the opposite. Let's have a few word from Gary: DMG pages 80 - 81: "Someone once sharply criticized the concept of the saving throw as ridiculous. Could a man chained to a rock, they asked, save himself from the blast of a red dragon's breath? Why not?, I replied. If you accept fire-breathing dragons, why doubt the chance to reduce the damage sustained from such a creature's attack? Imagine that the figure, at the last moment, of course, manages to drop beneath the licking flames, or finds a crevice in which to shield his or her body, or succeeds in finding a way to be free of the fetters. " "A character under magical attack is in a stress situation, and his or her own will force reacts instinctively to protect the character by slightly altering the effects of the magical assalut. This protection takes a slightly different form for each class of character. Magic-users understand spells, even on an unconscious level, and are able to slightly tamper with one so as to render it ineffective. fighters withstand them through sheer defiance, while clerics create a small island of faith. Thieves find they are able to avoid a spell's full effects by quickness. " There's a method to the five-save system. One that allows more flexibility, in imagining the action. I prefer S&W's single save myself, though. I actually see your example as being exactly WHY I like the idea of using abilities---it encourages player creativity, and lets them play to their strengths, which, ime, tends to be more fun. I mean, sure, a cleric could use Wisdom (if that's what you're suggesting) to claim their faith saves them, but it's up to the DM, after a time or two of that, to perhaps respond with a godly voice in their head saying "I help those who help themselves!" I don't see where its more advantageous, in this regard. Again, it further delimits the sphere of possible action. I'm not saying this is a "badwrongfun" thing. Just that I don't like it. That's all. I'm not sure how the fighter is more likely to be able to save, unless you mean simply because, classically, saving throws get easier as you rise in level... He's more likely to be able to save by means other than shrugging it off with Con.
|
|
|
Post by kesher on Jun 12, 2012 12:38:00 GMT -6
Gagggh. I knew that! Sorry!
Arbitrary maybe wasn't the best word to use; I meant it in the sense of one system necessarily being better than another, not that the system itself didn't have any real thought behind it. And that is a stellar quote from the DM's Guide...
And I, here, didn't say more advantageous, just, from my viewpoint, more fun. And I guess I don't understand how this further delimits the sphere of possible action, at least any more so than the traditional method. Or more than S&W's single save, or 3/4e's three saves, etc.
Thanks for explaining, though!
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Jun 12, 2012 16:50:14 GMT -6
I don't understand how this further delimits the sphere of possible action, at least any more so than the traditional method. Or more than S&W's single save, or 3/4e's three saves, etc. The "original" saving throw had exactly one parameter; the effect to be saved against. Thus, you had a save versus poison. Or a save versus paralysis. Or a save versus wands. Etc. Nowhere was any attempt made to specify how the character saved versus that effect. The how of it was left wide open. The "next" saving throw further qualifies this by introducing a second parameter to explain how. Thus, you have a save versus poison by virtue of being tough (con). Or a save versus paralysis by virtue of being strong (strength). Or a save versus wands by being quick (dexterity). Etc. The how of it is now a canned response to be served up as is, whether you like it or not. No longer will players save versus poison by quaffing an anti-dote, washing the wound with vinegar, sucking poison from the wound, or tying a tourniquet around the affected limb. Oh no. They will simply "save versus con".
|
|
|
Post by kesher on Jun 13, 2012 12:01:48 GMT -6
Okay, now I get it! Thanks for investing in my ongoing education! I also see the root of my misunderstanding. I've never, in my own experience as a player or DM, spent any time explaining, or being asked to explain, how my character saved against X. So, from my pov, Next expands possibilities. I can see players using ALL those explanations, depending on the ability/skill combo they want to use. Antidote: DEX to get it out and drink it in time without dropping it; Vinegar: WIS to know the folk wisdom cure; Sucking poison: INT to actually know how do it effectively, or maybe CON to stay alert long enough to get it done; Tourniquet: INT to know how to properly apply it, or maybe STR to get it tight enough. Not in my campaign. And not if they want to use their character's innate abilities/skills/feats dynamically. I just think this particular critique assumes a pre-existing style of handling saving throws, one which, Gary's excellent quote aside, neither me nor anyone I've ever played with has used. I'll stop now, since I've obviously made way more out of this point than James ever intended.
|
|
jasmith
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Posts: 316
|
Post by jasmith on Jun 13, 2012 14:23:08 GMT -6
I'll stop now, since I've obviously made way more out of this point than James ever intended. It's what I get for shooting off my mouth.
|
|
|
Post by thorswulf on Jul 30, 2012 22:12:55 GMT -6
I have to say, I haven't played or reffed D&D since 3E. I got the D&D Next material and gave it the twice over today at work. I like what I am seeing. Not having pansy wizards is GOOD thing as far asI am concerned! Though they may be a bit too powerful.... I wish they would have included stats for a humanoid shaman/witchdoctor for the playtest. I'm curious to see how players would react to that surprise.
Some of the character stuff will get tweaked is my guess before the final product. That's fine with me. I thumbed through Essentials, so some of the ideas in Next are easier tor grok. I think on the whole it will probably be more my thing than 4E was, as it seemed like a vast money pit. I had enough of that with 3E, thank you very much!
|
|
|
Post by Mr. Darke on Jul 30, 2012 22:21:58 GMT -6
Anyone know when the next document is set to be released?
|
|
|
Post by funkaoshi on Jul 31, 2012 7:57:02 GMT -6
I think it's coming at GenCon, and will include character creation rules.
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Jul 31, 2012 17:53:18 GMT -6
I think it's coming at GenCon, and will include character creation rules. This is basically what I've heard, although I also heard speculation that it might be a couple of days before GenCon so that folks running playtests would have time to read the new packets.
|
|
|
Post by Mr. Darke on Aug 1, 2012 12:16:09 GMT -6
Cool. I have enjoyed what I have seen and get a BECMI/RC vibe off of the rules as they are. I am hoping that WOTC sticks with that as the above was and is my favorite incarnation of the game.
|
|