Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
http://trollishdelver.blogspot.com/2012/01/what-we-learnt-from-first-d-next .html
THis blogger has a summary.
If you prefer twitter https://mobile.twitter.com/rolling20s also has the salient points.
Blarg. I know it's only a handful of short blurbs, but I can't say it makes me excited about the new edition. One thing that always bugged me about 4e was that it was, for lack of a better term, vague. These blurbs are in line with the same vague feelings I got from 4e previews (which, at the time, I assumed would ultimately be eliminated by the actual rules and some experience playing).
It could be a fun game, but I don't know that it sounds like what I want out of my D&D-brand experience.
One thing that the 3e previews did well was releasing these bits and pieces of the new mechanics, like the stats for Tiamat. I remember how that single page made me salivate for 3e in a way that the 4e previews never did. If they really want to show me that they've cracked the mystery of the uber-compatible edition of D&D, they need to provide a stat block.
And I don't mean a stat block for Tiamat (though that would be cool) - I mean a stat block for a longsword or fireball. Show me that those basic elements of D&D work and are interesting, and I'll pay more attention. Continue telling me stories of how three dudes played the game and liked it, and I'll continue to assume that the new edition deviates too much from the mechanical elements I love.
I think you can just slap a nick name into the box and put a comment in - the comments appear to be moderated though.
Yeah, I was reading it live and the page for it said comments by readers were moderated. It also said if you did not sign in or did not have an account, you could still comment, but any post you made would list your name as "guest".
There is going to be another one tomorrow at 12:30pm eastern time. Maybe they are doing one each day of D&D Experience. If they are, we should get one for Saturday and Sunday also.
Yep, interesting chat today. And tomorrow's will be good too, as it will be about release schedule and all.
I liked the part from today where they said they plan on including all classes that have been in the first Player's Handbook from all the editions.
|
|
Yep, interesting chat today. And tomorrow's will be good too, as it will be about release schedule and all.
I liked the part from today where they said they plan on including all classes that have been in the first Player's Handbook from all the editions.
Where did you get that info? That would be about 14 classes in the 1st PHB. That would be great. No more waiting years to play a monk or assassin.
|
Where did you get that info? That would be about 14 classes in the 1st PHB. That would be great. No more waiting years to play a monk or assassin.Yep, interesting chat today. And tomorrow's will be good too, as it will be about release schedule and all.
I liked the part from today where they said they plan on including all classes that have been in the first Player's Handbook from all the editions.
There are transcripts up in various places now: http://www.enworld.org/forum/news/317373-seminar-transcript-class-design-as sassins-wizards.html
Greg: Where do you start with your design when approaching the next edition. Are you looking at all of the classes, or a specific edition version?
Monte: To start with we kind of shot at the moon, and said everything that's been in a Player's Handbook 1, we want to potentially have in our new player's book. That includes things like the warlock and the warlord from 4th edition, but also includes the classes from other editions like the ranger, the wizard, the cleric. Going along those lines we separated things along the lines of what's common or uncommon. So for example fighters, clerics, wizards and clerics might be commmon while warlocks, bards, and paladins fall into uncommon and something like the assassin might be rare. This helps DMs determine what options they want to run in their games as well.
Bruce: It also might be the case that some of the classes labeled rare might be a bit more complex or difficult to pick up, so players could also have a gauge with how they want to pick their classes.
Not really getting excited about the new edition so far. Great idea, but thats all I am seeing right now is ideas. Going to wait to see the open playtest before I ready to jump on the 5th edition bandwagon. I almost think they announced the new edition to early, but damned if you do, damned if you don't.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Transcript from the final seminar is up.
Thank you Robert, I'm not sure I like all I'm seeing. Role playing is one thing, but I don't have an intelligence of 18, or a wisdom of 12. Likewise, how can a bashful player carry the day with roleplaying the rousing speech? I mean in Pathfinder, if I have an gregarious player, I can give him a circumstance bonus for role playing. For that shy player, he can do his best and let the dice do the talking.
I'll have to look at the public play tests, and go from there.
Well, from all the talk of things being modular, I think there will be official rules to do things all by the stats and dice rolls, and there will be official rules for making things much more based on role-playing, which is the way I prefer. I do not like to roll dice unless it is necessary, while I know there are others who want to do nothing but roll dice for everything.
Thank you Robert, I'm not sure I like all I'm seeing. Role playing is one thing, but I don't have an intelligence of 18, or a wisdom of 12. Likewise, how can a bashful player carry the day with roleplaying the rousing speech? I mean in Pathfinder, if I have an gregarious player, I can give him a circumstance bonus for role playing. For that shy player, he can do his best and let the dice do the talking.
I'll have to look at the public play tests, and go from there.
I think this bit addresses that:
Greg: Do you think there's room for that player or players who might not be comfortable with really roleplaying out what they're doing when they do these kind of skill interactions.
Monte: Oh yes, if you want to roll the dice and make your check, you can still do that. But I think that once that player dips his or her toe in that water and starts describing their actions, things will open up and that kind of activity will continue. You see it happen at tables all the time
|
Greg: Where do you start with your design when approaching the next edition. Are you looking at all of the classes, or a specific edition version?
Monte: To start with we kind of shot at the moon, and said everything that's been in a Player's Handbook 1, we want to potentially have in our new player's book. That includes things like the warlock and the warlord from 4th edition, but also includes the classes from other editions like the ranger, the wizard, the cleric. Going along those lines we separated things along the lines of what's common or uncommon. So for example fighters, clerics, wizards and clerics might be commmon while warlocks, bards, and paladins fall into uncommon and something like the assassin might be rare. This helps DMs determine what options they want to run in their games as well.
Bruce: It also might be the case that some of the classes labeled rare might be a bit more complex or difficult to pick up, so players could also have a gauge with how they want to pick their classes.
It could also be that a certain class isn't necessarily mechanically complicated, but opens up play styles that have proven troublesome in the past.
E.g. I think we'd all agree that a Cultist class, that fuels its power pool via cannibalistic blood rites, would be something that would either be absent from the game, or kept behind a firewall with other optional rules marked 'mature gamers only', preferably by a 3PP, so the official owners of the game can disown it.Obviously, that was an extreme example, but the same could also be said for graphic critical hit results, overly-detailed disease and poison effects, seduction powers, etc.
Where different groups draw the line can vary wildly; I'd not expect any of the above to be in the offical material, despite them not fazing me. They faze somebody, somewhere.
And for other groups, that line could be much less forgiving of classes like the assassin, whether it be 'Not in MY game!", or "Hmmm, only as an NPC.".
Some groups may not want the drama associated with the paladin class. Again, I find them very straightforward to adjudicate, but other GMs seem to tie themselves in knots by trying to enforce 20th-century morality (and IMO, a badly-interpreted reading of same, but that's a topic for a thousand and one other threads...).
Races like half-orcs and tieflings can make some players uneasy, due to the implications inherent in their origin.
Some religious players have misgivings about playing a game where PCs gain powers from visible pantheistic deities. A variant like the BECMI model, where they choose a general Ethos may be more to their taste.
And those groups deserve the chance to set up their own campaign in the way they want, and feel as if they're still playing the game as the authors intended, a game where there are modular layers that can be opted in or out, rather than being told they're having badwrongfun for stripping out core options.