The latest Legends and Lore article. They seem to be setting the bar very high with regard to creating 'something for everyone'. I'm skeptical, but found this stated goal to be ambitious, to say the least:
"Second—and this sounds so crazy that you probably won't believe it right now—we're designing the game so that not every player has to choose from the same set of options. Again, imagine a game where one player has a simple character sheet that has just a few things noted on it, and the player next to him has all sorts of skills, feats, and special abilities. And yet they can still play the game together and everything remains relatively balanced. Your 1E-loving friend can play in your 3E-style game and not have to deal with all the options he or she doesn't want or need. Or vice versa. It's all up to you to decide."
That would be fantastic, if possible to achieve - especially if it's a simple matter to convert modules from any edition (one of 4E's greatest strengths, in my view).
That sounds interesting can't wait to see how it plays out in the playtest.
I'd already signed up for the playtest, but this has definitely piqued my curiosity.
Yeah this really suits my group we have a few who are the kind to sit down days ahead and pour over every option in every book for max ability and then others who play strait CRB or PHB so this might help with any imbalance that can arise.
From Monte's Facebook wall a few days ago:
"Playtesting in the Lost Caverns of Tsojcanth. My dwarf just slew a lurker with a well-timed crit to save the swallowed paladin."
It would be very interesting if the new rules were compatible will all editions of D&D.
Hmmm. Well, on the plus side, it seems to knock system-mastery on the head, which had a pernicious effect on 3e. On the other... If you aren't going to reap any genuine benefit from utilising system complexity, what's the point?
Maybe they're approaching it like cars and transmissions? Straightforward and "hands-off" for those who aren't concerned about micromanaging their characters' mechanics. Versatile and manipulable for those who like to fine-tune their approach to a given challenge. I imagine we saw something like this in the more straightforward Essentials classes versus the more flexible pre-Essentials classes.
It would be very interesting if the new rules were compatible will all editions of D&D.Again, I don't think that's really possible without publishing 5e as a compilation of 3 different systems. Pre-d20, d20, and 4e are just too incompatible with each other.
I agree. As much as I'm hoping for something that slightly resembles the best parts of 3e, I don't want another 3e. We already have the complete 3.5 collection, Pathfinder, and scores of 3pp products for 3e.
In short, I'd be happy with something that shows a slight nod and wink to my fave edition, but stands on its own as a solid game.
From his description, it seems interesting but also a B**CH to DM in any homebrew, non-AP style game. With varying levels of complexity a DM would probably have to know every faucet of character concentrations and what they're capable of. In this aspect, it appears the DM is the one showering the PCs with spotlight attention instead of the PCs doing it on their own, on their turn (which I dont really agree with).
Second, won't this start to grow player-envy? I mean, if I'm in a party with a dwarf fighter who opt-out of Skills and Feats and swings his weapon 1/turn and there I am, using a glaive and tripping oppnents and throwing them back and performing interesting tricks with skills....well won't that put me in the better spotlight all the time while putting the simple guys to the back? And as a DM, how do you accomplish incorporating everyone when everybody's focuses are completely different?
Lots and lots of questions.
Hmmm. Well, on the plus side, it seems to knock system-mastery on the head, which had a pernicious effect on 3e. On the other... If you aren't going to reap any genuine benefit from utilising system complexity, what's the point?Maybe they're approaching it like cars and transmissions? Straightforward and "hands-off" for those who aren't concerned about micromanaging their characters' mechanics. Versatile and manipulable for those who like to fine-tune their approach to a given challenge. I imagine we saw something like this in the more straightforward Essentials classes versus the more flexible pre-Essentials classes.
Generally speaking, those who micromanage their vehicles specs don't just do it for the sake of doing it. The whole point is to min-max the car, to "optimize" it, as it were. If someone who tweaked and modded every part of their car with a specific goal in mind, and always ended up with something more or less equal to a stock car, there would be little point beyond the enjoyment garnered from tinkering with a machine.
I think that's the point Aubrey was getting at and something that I wonder about as well. Why waste all that time in R&D to develop a system, or series of subsystems, that doesn't accomplish much, if anything at all, beyond giving the illusion of customization?
Don't get me wrong, balance is not bad, but in any system that has any sort of complexity or customization, there end up being combinations that are, quite frankly, more optimal than others. Sometimes by far, whether by design or oversight.
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16
|
Unfortunately, I see this as a flaw in a system, not a feature. If I want to play a complex, tactical combat game, that features things like attacks of opportunity, flanking, customized characters that are made to give them lots of options in such a game, etc. I'm not going to want to play with someone else at the table who's character was built with the options of attacking...or attacking because they used the 1E set of modules in the rules.
Once you have that, you effectively have a fractured set of 5 different versions of D&D masquerading as a new unified version. If I'm the GM, I can make the game using the bits I want, but that doesn't help if I'm looking to join a game in progress that is using a different set of assumptions, and convention play seems like it would have to either pick one set of rules, or be similarly fractured, with multiple versions of the same edition of the game being played at the same convention - talk about confusing to pick the game you want to play.
Their goal seems to be to allow the guy who doesn't want a lot of extra bells and whistles to play at the same table with a guy running a more complex character and still have them balanced (maybe kind of like an essentials vs non essentials 4E character).
It sounds nice enough, but I have a lot of difficulty imagining how this game would actually look in play. I'm looking forward to seeing how they attempt to pull it off.
I can't help but think of the expression, "If you try to please everyone, you end up pleasing no one." If fear with this new version of the game that is what might happen. At least with 4E they had the guts to design as a system that is much different than the previous one. Sure a lot of people hate it, but the people that do like seem to like it a lot.
Their goal seems to be to allow the guy who doesn't want a lot of extra bells and whistles to play at the same table with a guy running a more complex character and still have them balanced (maybe kind of like an essentials vs non essentials 4E character).
It sounds nice enough, but I have a lot of difficulty imagining how this game would actually look in play. I'm looking forward to seeing how they attempt to pull it off.
I can't help but think of the expression, "If you try to please everyone, you end up pleasing no one." If fear with this new version of the game that is what might happen. At least with 4E they had the guts to design as a system that is much different than the previous one. Sure a lot of people hate it, but the people that do like seem to like it a lot.
I think it's possible IF one player is fine knowing that he'll be simple and not flashy (if that's their thing) yet can still contribute. If players are looking for that simplicity, it stands to reason that they're not looking to be super complex or feel compelled to use all sorts of bloated rules like Feats, Powers, Skills and just enjoy the story with their small amount of options.
Where I see this being the BIGGEST problem is for DMs and having to cope with varying players of varying options with varying outcomes and trying to remain within the "mean" of those options. These alternative options are easy enought to incorporate with published adventures, yet not entirely true with homebrew ones. Imagine this: The PCs come up to a locked door. They'll be a small side note saying~ "If the players have skills, they can use Open Lock/Thivery. If they don't, and you have X race, they can use this feature. If they don't have skills or that race, then they can use X-spell found in page Y of the PHB. If they lack all of these aspects, put a Monster of level X in front of the door as guardian and make them solve this riddle with no mechanical requirement..." WTF is that? And how does a DM go into his own homebrew campaign with these kinds of rules? The DM would literally have to create dozens of options for each encounter or obstacle to accomidate the level of the group because of the: "they can still play the game together and everything remains relatively balanced" style. To me, this sounds like the sort of game a DM who loves to Micro Manage would enjoy running but compeletly defies any attempt at DM'ing made easy.
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
That would be fantastic, if possible to achieve - especially if it's a simple matter to convert modules from any edition (one of 4E's greatest strengths, in my view).
I'm curious - are you saying that it's easy to convert earlier adventures to 4e? I ask because one our group's reasons for not liking 4e was the lack of backwards compatibility; there were just too many races, classes, monsters and magic items from previous editions that weren't in the original release. Seemed to us like you'd have to replace or recreate half the encounters, NPCs, and treasure from a 1e module to use it with 4e.
I will admit to not knowing if it's possible now in 4e, because we gave up on the system before any supplemental books were released.
My immediate concern has nothing to do with the player. It has to do with the GM responsibilities. Players only need to know the rules they play by, if this is the way they want to go, how many "rulesets" is the GM going to have to keep track of, and how much extra work is the GM going to have to do to track, reward and compensate different "modules" the characters are in?
I am still cautiously optimistic about 5e, but if they go down a path to give the player every option possible, with the burden of adjucating the game play falling on the GM.... I'm afraid there won't be many people willing to run the games people want to play.
Keeping my fingers crossed here.
My immediate concern has nothing to do with the player. It has to do with the GM responsibilities. Players only need to know the rules they play by, if this is the way they want to go, how many "rulesets" is the GM going to have to keep track of, and how much extra work is the GM going to have to do to track, reward and compensate different "modules" the characters are in?
I am still cautiously optimistic about 5e, but if they go down a path to give the player every option possible, with the burden of adjucating the game play falling on the GM.... I'm afraid there won't be many people willing to run the games people want to play.
Keeping my fingers crossed here.
I imagine the complexity at its worst would be about like 3.5 or PF. Characters created without the bells and whistles would be simpler, and wouldn't require as much attention.
What I'm worried about is not complexity, but compatibility. I can see how you'd create a system where you don't have to use everything, but running two different kinds of characters together and expecting them to have the same quality of play is another thing altogether.
I agree; my best guess at this point (wrong before? no, never, why do you ask?) is that the varying edition-compatibility/complexity-of-play/whatever-the-hell-it-ends-up-being will vary table to table rather than player to player at a table.
It may well be my own lack of imagination, but I can't see how someone playing with the feats add-on (or whatever) would have a similar effect on the game as someone without it sitting next to them.
I am very skeptical.
If the 3.5 fighter and the 1e are to be balanced, this would mean that the 3.5 fighter will have mathematical holes in his rule system, so that taking weapon focus won't make him better than the 1e fighter.
This will forced people to make builds to fill those holds or mean that feats won't have any impact on combat.
Lame.
That would be fantastic, if possible to achieve - especially if it's a simple matter to convert modules from any edition (one of 4E's greatest strengths, in my view).I'm curious - are you saying that it's easy to convert earlier adventures to 4e? I ask because one our group's reasons for not liking 4e was the lack of backwards compatibility; there were just too many races, classes, monsters and magic items from previous editions that weren't in the original release. Seemed to us like you'd have to replace or recreate half the encounters, NPCs, and treasure from a 1e module to use it with 4e.
I will admit to not knowing if it's possible now in 4e, because we gave up on the system before any supplemental books were released.
Oh yea, it's by far the easiest system I've found in converting certain aspects of other modules. Now, it's not an easy 100% conversion your going to find and it takes a moderatley skilled DM to come up with certain things to make up for creatures or items that aren't made into 4E. But on the whole, I've converted many adventures (espically from HERE) into 4E ones and they ran pretty smoothly. Espically since there are varying levels of specific creatures, it's easier to run within a certain tier than a specific level. For example, the adventure The Burning Plague can easily be run for levels 1-4 with the existing monsters and little tweaking instead of the 1st level only adventure since it's gritty aspects are showcased in the poisoning effects later on in the adventure.
And I now have a much better understanding of why your opinion of 4E is so low as I don't even really look at the core books anymore. Over half of them have been errataed and changed to incorporate better rules or are better established in supplemental books. There are over 30 (yes 30!) base classes in 4E with only 8 of them being covered in the PHB and 4 monster tomes to pick monsters from. It's a pretty robust system at this point IMO and gives a DM a LOT of info to work with. I just wish their adventures were better.
Monte Cook is right. His idea is so crazy that I don't believe it.
Hmmm. Well, on the plus side, it seems to knock system-mastery on the head, which had a pernicious effect on 3e. On the other... If you aren't going to reap any genuine benefit from utilising system complexity, what's the point?
System mastery doesn't exist. I am convinced he was just trying to cover his ass by claiming they made the biggest errors of 3rd Edition on purpose. "I meant to do that!"
Yeah, sure.
Generally speaking, those who micromanage their vehicles specs don't just do it for the sake of doing it. The whole point is to min-max the car, to "optimize" it, as it were. If someone who tweaked and modded every part of their car with a specific goal in mind, and always ended up with something more or less equal to a stock car, there would be little point beyond the enjoyment garnered from tinkering with a machine.
Oh, no, I was referring to manual transmissions versus automatic transmissions. Most people drive automatics for convenience's sake, and so that they don't have to learn how to drive stick shift. Some, however, prefer stick for the feeling of added control it affords them. I imagine the 5e team is going for something similar, at least in part.
|
First of all, I don't think this comment is something that they are actively exploring. It's probably more of a pipe dream.
Second, this would only work if the base of the game never changed. Like ability scores always mean exactly the same thing in every edition. Like how an 18 STR is always a +4 modifier. Even if they did do this, I bet the base model would be from 4E, not 1E or 2E. Perhaps there's a conversion formula that can be applied that transforms the character into 5E, and everything is calculated out so it scales to 5E standards. The idea being you enter your ability scores, level, class, etc, into a website or application, and then it spits out a 5E compatible character.
Third, this does nothing to address relative balance, and maybe it wasn't supposed to. Gamers nowadays want their games to be highly customizable and granular. They want control of everything to optimize. It would be important to address this as ignoring would probably invite the same issues that people had with 4E.
That would be fantastic, if possible to achieve - especially if it's a simple matter to convert modules from any edition (one of 4E's greatest strengths, in my view).I'm curious - are you saying that it's easy to convert earlier adventures to 4e? I ask because one our group's reasons for not liking 4e was the lack of backwards compatibility; there were just too many races, classes, monsters and magic items from previous editions that weren't in the original release. Seemed to us like you'd have to replace or recreate half the encounters, NPCs, and treasure from a 1e module to use it with 4e.
I will admit to not knowing if it's possible now in 4e, because we gave up on the system before any supplemental books were released.
It is very easy to convert an adventure to 4E, however it's important to remember its a conversIon - its hard to play an earlier edition module using 4E.
With regard to combat, the focus in 4E is on multiple enemies rather than more powerful enemies. Effects which last an entire battle are exceedingly rare. Things like that mean it won't be a one-to-one conversion, even if the story remains basically unchanged.
I don't know about earlier editions, but I've converted several PF modules, the CotCT AP and am halfway through Age of Worms. With a DDI subscription, I find a typical PF module takes maybe 4 hours to prep (slightly longer if there are many potential skill challenges, but I use those in PF too, so that's not really added time).
Ultimately though, it plays like 4E, so if you don't like the gameplay I wouldn't advise "giving it a go". For us, the ease of play and character creation is a blessing. Given Paizo's far superior adventures, the current state of affairs is pretty much my perfect world. :)
If you're skeptical about Monte's statement, go back and read my last post in this thread. I describe an actual D&D game that already happened that meets Monte's definition of modularity. I know for a fact that it's possible to do what he claims because I've actually seen it done.
On an unrelated note, you'll notice that the game I describe in that post had one player using per encounter powers, one player using spell points, and one player using traditional Vancian casting, all playing in the same game, all using only WotC-published 3.5 content.
They did sit at the same table, but the Warlock didn't not have the same power level as the Wizard. The Psion did have more options than a Swordsage.
Unless they make feats boring and very limited for 3.5 style classes, at some point the classes with more options (3.5,4e) will out perform the "older" (1e, 2e)classes. People will start crying (again) about balance and cry about lack of compatibility like people did when Essential came out.
I am very skeptical about the results. It looks like they'll use 4e math to produce Essential classes (older edtion) and make them play next to older edition classes (4e).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
"I live for moments when I tell people that I'm going to do something and they're reaction is, "that's impossible.""
- Monte Cook via Facebook today
Now imagine that the game offered you modular, optional add-ons that allow you to create the character you want to play while letting the Dungeon Master create the game he or she wants to run. ... Again, imagine a game where one player has a simple character sheet that has just a few things noted on it, and the player next to him has all sorts of skills, feats, and special abilities. ... Your 1E-loving friend can play in your 3E-style game and not have to deal with all the options he or she doesn't want or need.
It's interesting that he specifically calls out the 1E playstyle as an example, because that's the thing that doesn't mesh so well in my mind. Take your standard pit trap...
DM: Okay, you're standing in a five-foot wide corridor. The walls are made of a black stone you have never seen before. There's a dim light shining off in the distance.
1E Player: Yeah, there's a pit trap here. Not getting fooled again. [To the DM] I take out my 10' pole and prod around the floor in front of me. What happens?
3E Player: I'm doing the same. That's Search, right? [rolls dice] Got a 23!
At some point the DM either (1) takes the dice roll into account, marginalizing the 1E player with no skills; or (2) he smiles and nods at the 3E player and then gets back to resolving the encounter interactively with the 1E player.
I can imagine hybrids between the two systems, but both playstyles co-existing at the same table? I've been in games that tried it, and its always ended with somebody not getting what they want.
It will be interesting to see what Monte comes up with.
Unless they make feats boring and very limited for 3.5 style classes, at some point the classes with more options (3.5,4e) will out perform the "older" (1e, 2e)classes.Not if the alternative to taking feats is an appropriately powerful scaling bonus. Like, say, a (non-feat) fighter getting exceptional Strength and Constitution in the form of +1 Str and Con per X fighter levels. (Which, you'll note, is just modifying the 2e rules for exceptional Strength and Constitution to fit into a system where PC ability scores aren't capped at 18.)
So it would just be like 4e and Essentials classes playing at the same table.
5e could actually be 4.5. The older and younger classes published in the same core books to please everyone. Or so they think.
I'm wondering if we're missing something here...
Look at this section of the article specifically:
"...this isn't another salvo in the so-called edition wars. This isn't an attempt to get you to play Dungeons & Dragons in a new way. This is the game you've already been playing, no matter what edition or version you prefer. The goal here is to embrace all forms of the D&D experience and to not exclude anyone. Imagine a game where the core essence of D&D has been distilled down to a very simple but entirely playable-in-its-right game. Now imagine that the game offered you modular, optional add-ons that allow you to create the character you want to play while letting the Dungeon Master create the game he or she wants to run. Like simple rules for your story-driven game? You're good to go. Like tactical combats and complex encounters? You can have that too. Like ultra-customized character creation? It's all there."
I'm wondering if this means that there are some modules chosen by the players, and some chosen by the DM. I'm thinking that some things like 'tactical-combat-with-a-grid' would be a DM rules module, since you can't have one person use it and another not use it.
|
That would be fantastic, if possible to achieve - especially if it's a simple matter to convert modules from any edition (one of 4E's greatest strengths, in my view).I'm curious - are you saying that it's easy to convert earlier adventures to 4e? I ask because one our group's reasons for not liking 4e was the lack of backwards compatibility; there were just too many races, classes, monsters and magic items from previous editions that weren't in the original release. Seemed to us like you'd have to replace or recreate half the encounters, NPCs, and treasure from a 1e module to use it with 4e.
I will admit to not knowing if it's possible now in 4e, because we gave up on the system before any supplemental books were released.
Well, it's not exactly hard but the thing with 4e was always to get rid of preconceptions from 3e. For example, it's very rare for a particular encounter to be just a single monster in 4e. So encounters would need to be rebuilt, probably using extra monsters (or maybe fewer, depending). So it certainly isn't the case of simply converting monsters across one-for-one, but re-imagining the encounter (or not bothering for the less important ones, possibly, because 4e often works best with large set-piece encounters).
EDIT: Or, what others have said above.
|
|
Monte Cook is right. His idea is so crazy that I don't believe it.
Hmmm. Well, on the plus side, it seems to knock system-mastery on the head, which had a pernicious effect on 3e. On the other... If you aren't going to reap any genuine benefit from utilising system complexity, what's the point?System mastery doesn't exist. I am convinced he was just trying to cover his ass by claiming they made the biggest errors of 3rd Edition on purpose. "I meant to do that!"
Yeah, sure.
You may have a point. It sure seemed a dumb idea.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You know, I think it could be done as they say because they're distilling the game to its roots. What I take from this is that they are keeping the 4 core elements of the game and exanding from there. These core elements are: d20 engine, 6 stat ability scores, the simple action economy (standard, minor, move), and a class-based system. Each and every edition of D&D has had these elements w/ extreamly small changes. So it stands to reason they will remain the core concept of the game and add-on later aspects. No need for OA's unless u want them. No need for quickened spell unless you want them, no need for tactical movement (push, pull, slde) unless you want them.
There are probably going to be options for things you take or don't such as static bonuses feats if you opt-out of skill ranks, class features if you don't want feats, etc. Its plausable.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I personally think that a lot of this discussion of "compatibility" with earlier editions is wishful thinking. He's talking about the D&D "experience" feeling similar, not the game mechanics (that said, the D&D experience hasn't really changed much anyway for me irrespective of edition). So it'll "feel" like your favorite edition, but it'll still use 5e mechanics.
I personally think that a lot of this discussion of "compatibility" with earlier editions is wishful thinking. He's talking about the D&D "experience" feeling similar, not the game mechanics (that said, the D&D experience hasn't really changed much anyway for me irrespective of edition). So it'll "feel" like your favorite edition, but it'll still use 5e mechanics.
Yeah, I think that's what they're aiming for too.
Oh FFS, he's designing an RPG, not saving the world."I live for moments when I tell people that I'm going to do something and they're reaction is, "that's impossible.""
- Monte Cook via Facebook today
You never know. One of my fellow players in our old Scarred Lands game designed security software for the CIA and FBI.