eris
Level 4 Theurgist
Posts: 161
|
D&D 5E
Jan 11, 2012 17:32:27 GMT -6
Post by eris on Jan 11, 2012 17:32:27 GMT -6
You know, Fin, I've been thinking about that very point a lot lately. I think it's easy to get carried away thinking about high levels, especially in the context of "complete" systems like 4e's three tiers. In reality, though, through all the decades I've run games (and I've run far more than I've played), I don't think we ever had a character make it (legally!) past 6th or 7th level. So, good point! Same from me. I think I've had one 7th level PC in over 30 years of DMing. I kept hearing about 20th level PC's in other groups, but my folks all seemed to retire their characters at around 6th level (or die well before getting there) and start with 1st level guys again. I think PBB probably goes high enough for me to run games without much concern. OTOH, I'm not sold on Pathfinder, even in it's simplified PBB state, yet. I bought the box as my Christmas present to myself, but haven't really *grappled* with the rules yet. My first pass through the player's book didn't excite me...still more rules heavy than I like.
|
|
Azafuse
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Posts: 245
|
D&D 5E
Jan 11, 2012 17:41:45 GMT -6
Post by Azafuse on Jan 11, 2012 17:41:45 GMT -6
Many of them do exactly that, in fact. True, but WotC/Hasbro is kinda Microsoftish - sorry for the weird adjective - about market power, so it's more likely it does not. Hence, I can't agree with your argument that it's reasonable to give Wizards sole ownership of our ideas toward 5E as "back payment" for the OGL. From a moral point of view I agree too, but from an economic point of view I think it is a sort of trade-off. Talking about the tier paradigm, I like too the idea of a stripped ruleset focused on level 1-5 (with 6-15 and 16+ as iterative extentions).
|
|
eris
Level 4 Theurgist
Posts: 161
|
D&D 5E
Jan 11, 2012 17:47:03 GMT -6
Post by eris on Jan 11, 2012 17:47:03 GMT -6
I signed up as well. I expect a war to break out. Should be interesting to watch. Same here. I'm signed up and I expect a war to break out. If I'm not too busy with (a) family, (b) work, (c) games, and (d) life in general I'll try to participate in that war, too.
|
|
|
D&D 5E
Jan 11, 2012 19:23:21 GMT -6
Post by Finarvyn on Jan 11, 2012 19:23:21 GMT -6
I really hope it doesn't become a war, but I suspect that the two sides have grown far enough apart that there may not be enough common ground in the middle. If WotC can take the simplicity of the older editions and blend it with some of the cool parts of the newer editions I can see a neat game emerging. If not, both sides may hate it.
|
|
|
D&D 5E
Jan 12, 2012 0:18:17 GMT -6
Post by Falconer on Jan 12, 2012 0:18:17 GMT -6
I posted this elsewhere… I wonder if it will work like this:
Book 1: core rules, equivalent of Basic/Expert Book 2: offers additional elements that Advanced 1e and 3e hold in common; covers World of Greyhawk Book 3: offers additional elements from 4e and Eberron Book 4: offers additional elements from 1e, UA, and 2e Book 5: offers additional elements from 3.0e and 3.5e Book 6: Forgotten Realms and Planescape Book 7: Dragonlance, SAGA System, and Spelljammer Book 8: Mystara, Blackmoor, and BECMI rules etc.
|
|
|
D&D 5E
Jan 12, 2012 0:35:15 GMT -6
Post by Falconer on Jan 12, 2012 0:35:15 GMT -6
From everything I’ve heard, it sounds like they want you to be able to use 5e to recreate any version of D&D… Any version but 4e. They will try to throw 4e fans some bones, perhaps borrow some design elements, but at its core it will be 3e lite. And it’s basically impossible to truly recreate 4e from a pre-4e base.
You’d think if Pathfinder were the new giant, Wizards would go straight for the jugular by simply releasing their own 3.75. But that doesn’t seem to be the case. Crazy as it sounds, I think they’ve come around to my way of thinking: Old School IS the path to making D&D a massively successful game that can sit alongside Hasbro’s other core brands on toystore shelves. They’ve got one small window left when an older generation will gladly pick up a Red Box with The Keep on the Borderlands to play with their kids. Hopefully it’s the game they remember, and hopefully they will pass it along for all time as a family game. Basically, what they tried to do with Essentials, but for real this time.
(Woohoo, 1,000 posts!)
|
|
Azafuse
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Posts: 245
|
D&D 5E
Jan 12, 2012 2:54:15 GMT -6
Post by Azafuse on Jan 12, 2012 2:54:15 GMT -6
The problem will be dealing with the power-levels of monsters. For example, Feats and Skills boost 'to-hit' and damage levels, so how to do you make a monster work regardless of which options are chosen at the table? The only way I could see it work is to publish multiple stat blocks for each monster. It should be easier IMHO: read these lines for TSR monsters and read those lines for WotC monsters (maybe with a different background color, gray for example). Feats are not a big problem too (they're not Maxell Equations, 90% of the times). but I suspect that the two sides have grown far enough apart that there may not be enough common ground in the middle. Well, I think there are going to be more than just 2 sides: OSR itself is a sort of Confederation of single States/Editions (with a pretty similar shared thought about newer Editions but also with their own personal features). If WotC can take the simplicity of the older editions and blend it with some of the cool parts of the newer editions I can see a neat game emerging. If not, both sides may hate it. That should be the key IMHO: fast character creation, short spell descriptions, indipendent stackable options and so on. I posted this elsewhere… I wonder if it will work like this: Book 1: core rules, equivalent of Basic/Expert Book 2: offers additional elements that Advanced 1e and 3e hold in common; covers World of Greyhawk Book 3: offers additional elements from 4e and Eberron Book 4: offers additional elements from 1e, UA, and 2e Book 5: offers additional elements from 3.0e and 3.5e Book 6: Forgotten Realms and Planescape Book 7: Dragonlance, SAGA System, and Spelljammer Book 8: Mystara, Blackmoor, and BECMI rules etc. According to ENWorld, the first setting to be supported will be FR (and they say it will allow players to play anywhere across the timeline, before or after the Spellplague).
|
|
|
D&D 5E
Jan 12, 2012 12:20:45 GMT -6
Post by talysman on Jan 12, 2012 12:20:45 GMT -6
I posted this elsewhere… I wonder if it will work like this: Book 1: core rules, equivalent of Basic/Expert Book 2: offers additional elements that Advanced 1e and 3e hold in common; covers World of Greyhawk Book 3: offers additional elements from 4e and Eberron Book 4: offers additional elements from 1e, UA, and 2e Book 5: offers additional elements from 3.0e and 3.5e Book 6: Forgotten Realms and Planescape Book 7: Dragonlance, SAGA System, and Spelljammer Book 8: Mystara, Blackmoor, and BECMI rules etc. If they combine setting with emulation of specific versions, I think that will be a big mistake. For a truly flexible system, each setting needs to be playable in whichever mode (0e, 1e, 3e, 4e) the players prefer. Thus, you could play Greyhawk in its most basic form, or with more customizable 1e to 2e-style characters, or slightly superpowered 3e style, or over-the-top 4e style. What I think could work, as opposed to what they will probably do, is a scheme sort of like this: Core Book: four OD&D/BD&D-style classes plus two or three standard races, no ability min/max scores required, no skills, but some kind of ability check is described for those that need it. DM style described is location-based dungeons, random wilderness, barebones home town. Spell system is Vancian level-based, with low-level spells being very functional and game-y, high-level spells being more multipurpose and flavorful. Character Book: For the builder-style players. Extra races and classes, optional skill and feat system, rules for making more of each, all presented with three different levels of complexity, essentially equating to 1e-style, 2e-style, and 3e-style character building. Magic Book: extra spells and spell systems in several levels of complexity. Several approaches to magic items: rare and simple, mass-produced, exotic and dangerous. Combat Book: For levels of combat detail beyond the basic abstract approach: basic tactical (1e) or advanced grid-based (3e). How to integrate skills/feats or magic from other books. Monster Books: Monsters in the core book would be the standard, broad-appeal fantasy monsters: basic animal rules, goblinoids, basic undead, giants, dragons. Additional monster books would be broad themes: Fantastic Beasts for standard fantasy-adventure, Horrific Creatures for undead and cursed monsters, Cosmic Fiends for demons and the like. Style Books: cover additional DM/adventure styles: sandbox, plotted, extreme realism, metagame-y.
|
|
|
D&D 5E
Jan 12, 2012 18:47:29 GMT -6
Post by Falconer on Jan 12, 2012 18:47:29 GMT -6
Yeah, I wasn’t saying you would have to use the whole book, just that each book would collect various options.
|
|
|
D&D 5E
Jan 12, 2012 20:58:28 GMT -6
Post by talysman on Jan 12, 2012 20:58:28 GMT -6
Yeah, I wasn’t saying you would have to use the whole book, just that each book would collect various options. That's always true, and I'm sure Greyhawk players (for example) would love getting Greyhawk setting material for free as part of a book they were going to buy anyways... but not only would some people get ticked off at a pricey book that includes setting material for a setting they don't want, but WotC would reason that if setting books are stand-alone, they would have more books to sell and thus make more money. Of course, it looks like they will be selling large books, that contain a mix of all versions instead.
|
|
|
D&D 5E
Jan 15, 2012 8:51:37 GMT -6
Post by Max_Writer on Jan 15, 2012 8:51:37 GMT -6
I don't want 5th ed in my Greyhawk ...
|
|
Azafuse
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Posts: 245
|
D&D 5E
Jan 16, 2012 4:47:11 GMT -6
Post by Azafuse on Jan 16, 2012 4:47:11 GMT -6
Very interesting Monte Cook's article here. Maybe my Read Magic spell is fumbling, but I think I've found FLAILSNAILS Convention written in ancient runes inside this paragraph.
|
|
|
D&D 5E
Jan 16, 2012 4:53:31 GMT -6
Post by waysoftheearth on Jan 16, 2012 4:53:31 GMT -6
I told the 5E forum how I would save D&D here . Look for the familiar dark angel ;D
|
|
|
D&D 5E
Jan 16, 2012 7:34:51 GMT -6
Post by Finarvyn on Jan 16, 2012 7:34:51 GMT -6
Nice post. You have a good vision about what an "old school 5E" could look like. I hope we get some of that stuff in the final product.
|
|
|
D&D 5E
Jan 16, 2012 8:31:38 GMT -6
Post by llenlleawg on Jan 16, 2012 8:31:38 GMT -6
I agree, waysoftheearth: a nice post. I try not to be disheartened, however, by reading a certain version of resistance, viz. "We already have that game, and you can still play it. I want to see what new game they can come up with." It seems as though many are committed to the idea that new iterations of games ought to be, by any objective standards, new games. Inspired, perhaps, by tropes and elements of its namesake, but fundamentally new games. Others of us would like to see support for a game we know how to play, however different this or that feature may be presented in a new iteration published to both (a) support old players, and (b) attract new ones. It is very hard to see how we will come together on this one!
The irony is that, in business/negotiated settlement speak, our BATNA (best alternative to a negotiated agreement) pretty much already exists. We can go ahead and use the OGL-inspired clones, already out there or forthcoming (e.g. Delving Deeper) to play the game we know and love. What we lose, of course, is the possibility of advertizing, say, that we are playing D&D and inviting new players, since we would have no clue as to what game they knew how to play. The BATNA for 4e players is fairly unstable and relies heavily on WotC's desire to continue to support this game. So, I at least understand that the 4e players have far more to lose and why, even if in unhelpful ways, they worry about WotC's warming to getting the "old ways" back at the table.
|
|
|
D&D 5E
Jan 16, 2012 8:36:21 GMT -6
Post by llenlleawg on Jan 16, 2012 8:36:21 GMT -6
Very interesting Monte Cook's article here. Maybe my Read Magic spell is fumbling, but I think I've found FLAILSNAILS Convention written in ancient runes inside this paragraph. This latter quote is, to me, most hopeful and especially desirable. While I know there was (weird and unjustified) acrimony in the shift, e.g. from 1e to 2e AD&D, the fact that the lingua franca of D&D allowed characters made from OD&D, the supplements, Strategic Review, the AD&D PHB, the Moldvay/Cook and Menzters Books, and the 2e books, all to be at the same table more or less without batting an eye is a goal worth achieving.
|
|
|
D&D 5E
Jan 16, 2012 20:49:47 GMT -6
Post by waysoftheearth on Jan 16, 2012 20:49:47 GMT -6
Thanks for the kind remarks guys.
I have no expectations of the 5E forum, whatsoever. So far, I am rather surprised that most of the replies (to my post) have been positive. Only one person has really gone on the attack, but you get those.
Unfortunately, that whole forum is already choked with "he said, she said" style arguments. People following any threads will soon realise who the serial nay-sayers are.
It must make it quite difficult for WotC staff to find any "genuine" content, however...
|
|
eris
Level 4 Theurgist
Posts: 161
|
D&D 5E
Jan 17, 2012 13:26:28 GMT -6
Post by eris on Jan 17, 2012 13:26:28 GMT -6
A bit of heresy here, I guess, but I had ignored official D&D for years before 3.0 came out. I ran other systems and a heavily houseruled version of ODD, but neither cared about...nor bought any of AD&D. But I bought 3.0...and it made a lot of sense to me. I'd house ruled ascending AC long ago, I liked Traveller...with skills and standard difficulty levels, the classes made sense, the multiclassing made sense, and the 1d20 + modifiers for virtually everything except damage made sense, too. I ignored as many of the other rules as I could and it worked just fine.
So, I played 3.0, I ran it, and I mostly liked it, but I never expanded past the CORE 3.0. Of course, I was running a very pared down 3.0 as it was, but that worked for me. As I said, I ignored rules, made rulings, ran things "old school"..although until I found the OSC I didn't refer to it that way, it was just how I did things.
The only part I never gronked was "Encounter Creation" and "balance." It was just too d**n complicated for me to figure out, and I wasn't sure I *wanted* balanced encounters. So, I just stuck with my old "rule of thumb...1HD per level monsters, and the sum of HD of monsters a party would face in a session being roughly matched up against the sum of the levels in the party....when I worried about "balance" at all. And it worked for me.
I had hopes that 4.0 would reverse the rules creep of increasing complexity that was in every expansion out of WOTC...and most 3rd parties. I was hoping for simple, I didn't get it. You can say various things about 4.0, but simple isn't one of them. I bought the core, never played it, never ran it.
Pathfinder...well, I bought it too, but as far as I can tell it's 3.5 with extra complications. The Beginner Box is simpler, but still more complex than I'd run.
I have no hopes for 5.0. I'll keep an eye on it, but the odds of it being a system I'll like and run are slim. That's where I am in regards D&D Next.
|
|
jasmith
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Posts: 316
|
D&D 5E
Jan 17, 2012 16:35:43 GMT -6
Post by jasmith on Jan 17, 2012 16:35:43 GMT -6
The only part I never gronked was "Encounter Creation" and "balance." It was just too d**n complicated for me to figure out, and I wasn't sure I *wanted* balanced encounters. So, I just stuck with my old "rule of thumb...1HD per level monsters, and the sum of HD of monsters a party would face in a session being roughly matched up against the sum of the levels in the party....when I worried about "balance" at all. And it worked for me. I ignored the 3e Encounter Level/Balance thing, at first. Then toyed with it, only to discover that it just didn't work, anyway.
|
|
|
D&D 5E
Jan 18, 2012 7:08:03 GMT -6
Post by waysoftheearth on Jan 18, 2012 7:08:03 GMT -6
I just read this encouraging statement on EnWorld (from someone who got invited to play test the 5E alpha at WotC)... With the 5th Edition of Dungeons & Dragons, Wizards of the Coast is seeking to "create a rule set that enables players of all types and styles to play a D&D game together by taking the best of each edition and getting at the soul of what D&D is." I did get an opportunity to playtest some of the materials and the above statement is not too far off; it felt, in many ways, very retro.
(emphasis added) See www.enworld.org/forum/news/316036-off-see-wizards-day-wizards-coast-showed-me-d-d-5th-edition.html . After giving it some thought (and undue worry), I reckon the only way WotC can realistically achieve their stated goal is to have a set of core rules that harken right back to the beginning. I.e., the soul of D&D. Now that has got to be something retro, and the above indicates that might be pretty close. Ish. Then they add a bunch of "add ons" rules allowing players to selective add the key features of each of the subsequent editions on top of the core. Gamer groups could then choose as many or as few "add ons" as they please. Will be interesting to follow, at least. The real question is, why do I care so much about it??
|
|
|
D&D 5E
Jan 18, 2012 12:49:50 GMT -6
Post by Falconer on Jan 18, 2012 12:49:50 GMT -6
The real question is, why do I care so much about it?? I’m guessing because it IS annoying that the D&D fanbase is so fragmented. It would be nice not to talk about edition every time I talk about D&D. It would be nice to have players from the “current edition” (whatever that is) to be able to sit down at my game and not be completely in a different ballpark, and vice-versa. It would DEFINITELY be nice to see PDFs return, as well as PODs and select reprints. (IMO, all only a matter of time.)
|
|
|
D&D 5E
Jan 18, 2012 13:46:19 GMT -6
Post by llenlleawg on Jan 18, 2012 13:46:19 GMT -6
I’m guessing because it IS annoying that the D&D fanbase is so fragmented. It would be nice not to talk about edition every time I talk about D&D. It would be nice to have players from the “current edition” (whatever that is) to be able to sit down at my game and not be completely in a different ballpark, and vice-versa. Precisely this! One attitude I have found so difficult to grasp on the WotC boards, especially those discussing the newly announced iteration of D&D, is the presumption by some that there ought regularly to be new editions, and that any edition, to be justified, must necessarily be something quite new, quite different, a game we have neither yet played nor conceived. I have nothing against something being new, or having different features here and there, but when I say I play D&D, and someone who started last week says the same, surely we both have a vested interest in meaning more or less the same thing!
|
|
|
D&D 5E
Jan 18, 2012 14:07:16 GMT -6
Post by Mushgnome on Jan 18, 2012 14:07:16 GMT -6
There is a similar debate in the Linux software community. There are hundreds of Linux distributions or "distros" out there.
Some are "static release" meaning they are self-contained with a fixed feature set, designed with a fixed support period (product lifespan) in mind, do not receive major new features/improvements once released, and feature "planned obsolescence" to be superseded by a major new release when the support period ends.
Others are "rolling release" meaning you install them once and receive small incremental updates through the weeks, months, and years. Your system never becomes obsolete or outdated (unless you disconnect from the internet or choose to stop running updates). Current users have compatible systems, regardless of whether they installed weeks ago or years ago, and there are no distinct versions or release numbers.
For whatever reason--maybe it is human psychology, maybe better marketing, or maybe it really is the superior method for a majority of users--the fixed release distros (Ubuntu, Debian, Fedora, Red Hat, Slackware, etc) have the overwhelming market share, and the rolling release distros (Arch, Gentoo, etc) have the reputation as too difficult/non-user-friendly/fringe/elitist.
An interesting parallel to the gaming industry.
|
|
|
D&D 5E
Jan 18, 2012 16:01:46 GMT -6
Post by waysoftheearth on Jan 18, 2012 16:01:46 GMT -6
One attitude I have found so difficult to grasp on the WotC boards, Personally, the main issue I have with the WotC boards is the confrontational nature of half the posts. I guess I have become quite accustomed to the congenial nature of discussions, and the generally high level of respect that posters afford one another on these boards, even in disagreement. It is certainly not so over there. I am surprised that there is so little moderation; a lot of otherwise useful discussion is clouded by bickering between a minority of vocal individuals. And there are clearly also quite a few who are not content that "the edition wars are over," and want to carry on arguing for whatever position they have on that. Not helpful. I half suspect that the dndnext discussion forum is simply a diversion. Something to keep the hotheads busy with while WotC get of with "stuff" behind the scenes. Still. It is the only avenue of communication they have thus far provided to us, and so we can either make the most of it, or else make nothing of it.
|
|
|
D&D 5E
Jan 18, 2012 17:02:44 GMT -6
Post by doctorx on Jan 18, 2012 17:02:44 GMT -6
One attitude I have found so difficult to grasp on the WotC boards, Personally, the main issue I have with the WotC boards is the confrontational nature of half the posts. I guess I have become quite accustomed to the congenial nature of discussions, and the generally high level of respect that posters afford one another on these boards, even in disagreement. It is certainly not so over there. That's why this is pretty much the only board I frequent.
|
|
eris
Level 4 Theurgist
Posts: 161
|
D&D 5E
Jan 18, 2012 17:13:44 GMT -6
Post by eris on Jan 18, 2012 17:13:44 GMT -6
One attitude I have found so difficult to grasp on the WotC boards, <snip> I half suspect that the dndnext discussion forum is simply a diversion. Something to keep the hotheads busy with while WotC get of with "stuff" behind the scenes. Still. It is the only avenue of communication they have thus far provided to us, and so we can either make the most of it, or else make nothing of it. From the few peeks I've made there I'd say the noise to signal ratio in DNDNext is way too high! Any useful information gets drowned out by complete blather. I can't imagine that WOTC would even consider letting "the community" design 5th ed anyway. Committees do a bad job of designing or developing *anything* and letting "the community" in on the action is surely a receipt for disaster. I figure the professionals will design something, let "the community" know about it. Maybe there will be some playtesting of their design, although I doubt they'll do a broad *public* playtest, from which they will gather data. Then they'll revise and development, and release 5th edition as "community tested and approved!"
|
|
|
D&D 5E
Jan 18, 2012 22:50:21 GMT -6
Post by waysoftheearth on Jan 18, 2012 22:50:21 GMT -6
|
|
|
D&D 5E
Jan 19, 2012 2:36:31 GMT -6
Post by waysoftheearth on Jan 19, 2012 2:36:31 GMT -6
My latest "missive" for the dndnext forum to tear apart: The edition wars are over. It's fine that you want to play edition X, and I want to play edition Y, and someone else wants to play edition Z. It's great that gamers are so passionate about the game they love.
The problem that WotC have as a result is they have a fragmented player base. So what should we all do about it?
Well, the first step toward healing any rift is usually identifying the cause of the problem. So here's my shot at it...
A central issue, IMHO, is vocabulary.
Most of you will probably have seen the word clouds for each edition of D&D. If you haven't, look here: www.thealexandrian.net/archive/archive20... , it is very interesting.
You might scoff at this, but one thing is clear; 4E brought with it a significantly different vocabulary. Gamers that had been happily using D&D-speak for up to 34 years of D&Ding were abruptly confronted with change. It's hardly surprising that some weren't happy.
That little story is not entirely unlike the little story of Old- and Middle-English. Consider this...
Prior to the Norman conquest, the peoples of the British Isles spoke what is now referred to as "Old English". There were various dialects but the British folk could, in the main, comprehend one another.
In 1066 the Normans, under William, came (bloodily) to power and brought with them an alien language; Anglo-French. From there on, all matters of court and of state and of church were conducted in Anglo-French which the endemic population didn't even understand. Not surprisingly, this (along with the Normans' status as the ruling class) was the cause a serious social rift.
Not so different to what happened to D&D with the coming of 4E.
The good news is, that by the 1100s the popular language of the British Isles had assimilated many of the Anglo-French words, and become what we now call "Middle English". The French words came, of course, from the French speaking ruling class. The upshot of it was that, once again, the folk of the British Isles had a common tongue -- Middle English -- with which to better get along.
Getting back to D&D, that "common language" is what I think WotC should be after when they say they are looking for the "soul of D&D". It is paramount to the success of 5E that they get that vocabulary right. The first, necessary, step along the road toward getting the fragmented fan base back together, is to get them talking the same language again.
So, allow me to add one more Let to my list:
Let 5E use a vocabulary that is immediately recognisable as "D&D speak".
|
|
eris
Level 4 Theurgist
Posts: 161
|
D&D 5E
Jan 19, 2012 17:01:33 GMT -6
Post by eris on Jan 19, 2012 17:01:33 GMT -6
Ways, could you expand that url for me. It is chopped off at "/archive20..." and there has to be more.
|
|
|
D&D 5E
Jan 19, 2012 18:20:53 GMT -6
Post by waysoftheearth on Jan 19, 2012 18:20:53 GMT -6
|
|