As a fellow forum poster on another familiar gaming forum (Okay, not really anymore... but still), I hear ya. But, when you were warned, it was probably not because you were criticizing D&D so much as the way you phrased your criticisms, which some might have taken as insensitivity. I'm not asking for "over sanitation" of posts, but it's best to be careful how you word things on the web. I get what you're saying, but others might not.
But I digress. Unless someone starts up their own forum, I don't know if you'll find what you're looking for. Utopia is No Place, after all.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Flaws in a game system can be somewhat subjective. One person's flaws are another's features, as can be evidenced by the discussions in these very forums.
Now, if you're pointing out real flaws, such as faulty equations in the rules or missing entries in a table, that's okay. However, if you're trying to point out something that doesn't work for you, bear in mind it may well work out for others, and that the game may well be targeted at their playstyle rather than yours. Even if it makes the system unusable for you (e.g. balance issues), that doesn't necessarily indicate a flaw or a broken system.
A desire to make the system usable by more people is a good thing to promote, but consider when something may be better worded as "playstyle options" rather than "fixes".
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Most importantly I offer suggestions on how to remedy the problems so that we can all get a game that we want to play out of it.
I dont think anyone should be stopped from saying what they want. However, I personally think this is fundamentally impossible (the most obvious example being that you like balanced games and I like unbalanced games - there just isnt a way to accomodate such mutually inconsistent positions within the same game).
Whilst I think supporting multiple playstyles is an admirable and possibly achievable goal, if they're truly aiming for "a game everyone wants to play" I think they are doomed to fail.
As a practical, how-not-to-get-banned suggestion. Maybe you should word your critique in terms of "what I dont like" rather than "what is broken". Some people take umbrage when there is a perception of stating one's preferences as "how things should be".
I don't think they've ever claimed that they plan to support many different play styles with the base rules. They've always said they want to keep the base/core system simple, so it would be easy for people to learn and play and so that they could produce later supplements that would provide added complexity. The playtest isn't really intended to test that kind of modularity. The point seems to be to try to build a strong foundation for the game that they can build on later. If you think of D&D next as a house, the playtest is essentially just the foundation/basement. I guess that's a bad analogy since it's intended to be a fully functional game when released, which wouldn't be the case with a house that is only a foundation or basement, but the point is that the playtest isn't the whole game. Personally I don't think there's even much point in discussing it right now. The public playtest is done and the game isn't out yet. I'm reserving judgement until I see the final product, and even then I probably need to wait another year and see what sort of supplemental stuff they will come out with that builds on the base system.
Well, in reality they could start with a well balanced game and then add a module that adds in all the brokenness of past editions on top and you would have your game with a single module (with spells like Wish, Evard's Tentacles, metamagic feats, etc...etc...) and I would have my game by adding the tactical module (which would add tactical options on level up and every round of the game to each class), and we would both get the game we want, however they have not even hinted at anything like that, so it probably won't happen.
Maybe. I'm not much good at game design, so I dont really have much right to an opinion.
Nonetheless, based on general principles, I think it's better to identify whatniche you want to fill and then do it well rather than try and be all things to all people. It seems to me that they made a deliberate effort to target the OSRIC crowd rather than the 4E crowd with the base system of D&D:Next.
Maybe there's a hypothetical base system which could give you and I a game we'd both like to play (with tweaks), but I'm skeptical. I dont know how indicative my tastes are, but part of the reason I like the older editions is because magic > mundane, because 1st level magicusers need protection and luck to stay alive before they become very useful and because you can die with a single, unlucky roll.
I don't think they've ever claimed that they plan to support many different play styles with the base rules. They've always said they want to keep the base/core system simple, so it would be easy for people to learn and play and so that they could produce later supplements that would provide added complexity. The playtest isn't really intended to test that kind of modularity. The point seems to be to try to build a strong foundation for the game that they can build on later. If you think of D&D next as a house, the playtest is essentially just the foundation/basement. I guess that's a bad analogy since it's intended to be a fully functional game when released, which wouldn't be the case with a house that is only a foundation or basement, but the point is that the playtest isn't the whole game. Personally I don't think there's even much point in discussing it right now. The public playtest is done and the game isn't out yet. I'm reserving judgement until I see the final product, and even then I probably need to wait another year and see what sort of supplemental stuff they will come out with that builds on the base system.
I think your analogy is clear enough (maybe a primitive, one bedroom house with room for extensions, a pool, etcetera..) I agree there isnt a lot of point to these discussions in terms of having influence on the final ruleset on release. I find it interesting to hear what other people like in a game though. I always play with the same group, so dont really get exposed to differing playstyles/preferences beyond reading forum posts.
They didn't do that though. They claimed (and still in recent articles claim) that 5E should replicate all the major play styles of all the editions and it doesn't even come close to emulating any play styles outside of a narrow 2.5E to 3.5E play style.
And you can't really layer the 1E or 4E style on top of what we've seen. As I said before they would have to really simplify the system before that would be possible.
1E relies almost entirely on DM judgment calls along with ability checks. The DM through storytelling and fiat enforce roles on the players (like monsters stopping at the fighter, when rules wise they can literally run right past and gank the casters). Casters get vancian spells, and Rogues get backstab and a small chance to disable traps, open locks, etc...etc...
4E relies almost entirely on balanced tactical choices on level up as well as from round to round. These choices when used well can turn the tide of an encounter in the players favor and there is a lot of synergy between classes and their abilities. Everything from at-will, encounter, and daily powers, healing surges, magic items, class features, racial traits, etc...etc... all are balanced tactical choices.
You can't really layer that on top of what we've seen of the 2E/3E Frankenstein creature that is 5E.
Perhaps (although I 'layer' a 1E style over Pathfinder/4E when I run those, so I think it's possible, at least in that direction). My point isnt really to debate the playtest - I agree with PH Dungeon that there's very little point to that, since it's happened now.
My point was that aiming for a generic game would be an error in my view (I'll take your word for it that they said that's what they're trying to do - in that case, I think they're aiming for the unachievable and someone is going to be disappointed).
What do you do to layer "1e style" over Pathfinder and 4e?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
What do you do to layer "1e style" over Pathfinder and 4e?
Ignore a lot of the subsystems, basically. We've never shifted from "the DM decides" paradigm really (no matter what system we play), so when it comes time to knock people off ledges, climb walls or research new spells we don't generally go by what's in the rules. A quick, plausible judgement on the DM's part is superior to a slower resolution according to the rules as far as I'm concerned.
That's niceWhat do you do to layer "1e style" over Pathfinder and 4e?Ignore a lot of the subsystems, basically. We've never shifted from "the DM decides" paradigm really (no matter what system we play), so when it comes time to knock people off ledges, climb walls or research new spells we don't generally go by what's in the rules. A quick, plausible judgement on the DM's part is superior to a slower resolution according to the rules as far as I'm concerned.
Yes.
That's great if your players are good with that. I find that with my own group their acceptance of GM rulings depends quite a bit more on the system we are using. If I'm running a Mutants and Masterminds game or some other system that can be run pretty loosely then they don't have an issue when I make those kinds of calls. However in a game like 4e where the rules are very clear cut and don't leave a lot of room for GM fiat they don't let me get away with that as much.
Yes.That's niceWhat do you do to layer "1e style" over Pathfinder and 4e?Ignore a lot of the subsystems, basically. We've never shifted from "the DM decides" paradigm really (no matter what system we play), so when it comes time to knock people off ledges, climb walls or research new spells we don't generally go by what's in the rules. A quick, plausible judgement on the DM's part is superior to a slower resolution according to the rules as far as I'm concerned.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That's great if your players are good with that. I find that with my own group their acceptance of GM rulings depends quite a bit more on the system we are using. If I'm running a Mutants and Masterminds game or some other system that can be run pretty loosely then they don't have an issue when I make those kinds of calls. However in a game like 4e where the rules are very clear cut and don't leave a lot of room for GM fiat they don't let me get away with that as much.
I also find that the gamesystem has an impact on how much fiat people will accept (or at least expect). Nonetheless, I think we generally favor the style of play where the DM is more rule-maker than rule-interpreter.
I think part of the culture of acceptance is that we rotate DMs. We generally make a judgement call when something comes up and then all follow a similar path no matter who is DMing - so there isnt quite the DM/player divide that seems common at other tables. If we adopt a harsh interpretation as DM, we'll live with the same harsh interpretation as player.
Ultimately, it all comes down to time. We only get to play three or maybe four hours a week and nobody but me has much time between sessions - games like pathfinder bring a lot of complexity that isnt of much value to us. The rigor and codification of 4E's combat also go against the more subjective style we're used to.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think they are thinking of play style quite the same way you are. Each edition can have many different play styles depending on the group that is playing it. For example you might a have one group that runs a combat heavy game (hack and slash) or a game that features more role play and intrigue or one that deals a lot with exploration or investigation etc... Currently I think that each version of D&D can accommodate any of the play styles I just listed, but some probably do certain ones better than others.
None of the examples you provided spell out that they plan to provide the same level of tactical combat options in the same manner that 4e does it. Borrowing certain mechanics from a certain edition (like passive perception or ongoing damage or recharge numbers for certain monster abilities) isn't the same as emulating a play style.
I think the best you can hope for is seeing a bunch of subclass builds or path options for each of the martial classes that provide maneuver type abilities/exploits somewhat like how they're developing the gladiator path and a rules module for tactical combat that gives more explicit rules for grid combat and attacks of opportunity and the like. More expansive attack of opportunity rules combined with maneuvers that let you do things like knock targets prone will make those kind of moves more useful and provide PCs with more tactical decisions. Whether they end up doing all that or not I'm not sure, and even if they do I doubt that will possibly match up with the combo options martial characters in 4e can get with all the powers they can choose from (both in combat and when creating their characters). If you think what I described above might cut if for you then you may end up liking the game, assuming they eventually get all that kind of content out. Otherwise you're probably better off with 4e since that system works pretty good for the most part, and has a enough content to keep a gaming group going for the next 50+ years. Just hope they don't shut down the character builder and online compendium as those are nearly essential for playing that edition.
Why do you want this edition to try to please you so bad anyhow? From the sounds of your posts 4e is giving you what you want. Are there things you don't like about 4e that you were hoping this edition will fix or is it more an issue that 4e will no longer be supported so you hope that the new edition will be to your liking (since it clearly will be supported for the next x many of years)?
Personally I like 4e but it has things that I kind of hate about it as well. For instance I like how they balanced the classes a lot better. I like that they made it harder to get access to abilities like flight and long range teleportation. I like that martial characters have so many fun options both in character creation and during combat. I like that skills have been simplified. I like that all the info you need to run your character is on your sheets (all 10+ pages of them). I like some of the clarity of how powers are worded (like "ends at start of your turn"). The reduced swingyness of the game is nice for a lot of players (i.e. they aren't likely to be one-shotted by something). I like what they did with alignment. I like the idea of rituals and more or less how they implemented it.
I don't like that there is still a heavy reliance on magic items (though that can mitigated with the rules option that I can't remember the name of right now). I don't like that in order to create a challenging combat you usually need to make it a long combat. There are so many powers and such that as a dm I can't possibly keep track of them all, so I never really know what players are doing half the time in combat. I dislike how "gamey" combat can feel/sound (ie "I hit him for 32 damage; I also shift him 3 squares and he is dazed, save ends; then I spend a minor action to spend a healing surge, and as a move action I shift back one square").
I think their intention was to try to distill the "essence of D&D" by looking at all the editions, searching for common elements that link them together and then taking some of the best parts of each edition to make the core of the new edition. I'm not sure exactly how well they've succeeded, and I'm in no position to make that call until I've seen and played the finished version of the new edition (even then you'll probably need to wait a while for them to release additional content- you probably remember people griping a lot when 4e came out that it wasn't a "complete" game because the phb didn't include gnomes or a barbarian class etc.. but now all that stuff is in the game). I can tell you that they have reprinted the core books from each edition in the past year or so, which means in a way they have supported the "play style of each edition" (as you put it) since you can buy any of the past editions you want. Since they are putting pdfs from all editions back online for sale you also have content support for any edition you choose to play.
By the way, you might want to check out 13th Age since that game has a lot of mechanics that are 4e inspired, which you might like. If 4e is getting stale and you don't like the direction of 5e it could be an alternative.