"And why the simple mechanics? Two reasons: First, complex mechanics invariably channel and limit the imagination; second, my neurons have better things to do than calculate numbers and refer to charts all evening." -Over the Edge
@Mike - If you're trying to guage how interested people might be in this kind of game I can see how some people would like it but it's not for me. Or at least it's not for me when it comes to Dungeons & Dragons.Can't wait for that "big announcement" at Gen Con. ;) Sorry, sorry. I had to say it, hehe. I jest, I jest.
Happy to be back on the best D&D forum on the internet!
I just hope they bring back the 9 alignements to give players and DM who like them more options, more complexity.ewho do not like them could do what they always did, ignore them.
FREE 5E ADVENTURE!!!
DOWNLOAD MY FREE 4E ZINE!!!
In some ways, the entire concept of RPG mechanics makes little sense when you consider that the DM is on hand to adjudicate things. Rules can’t turn a bad DM into a good one or ensure a “fair” (whatever that might mean) game. In my view, rules that try to force the DM to play fair are a waste of time. After all, the DM can just put Tiamat in the next room of the dungeon and slaughter the characters whenever he or she wishes. Why try to legislate some of the DM’s power while leaving huge, gaping holes elsewhere? Is the book going to suddenly animate and pummel the DM for being a meanie?
So 5th edition for 2012? It IS the end of the world. Wizards...I am sorry you won't get another dime out of me if you do this.Thank God I kept the offline builder on my computer!
Week by week, little by little, 5th edition is revealed. I miss the D&D Alumni. That series talked more about the past in a favorable light to 4th. Legends and Lore reminds me of how much of 4th edition is being thrown under the bus. Miniature-less combat? F@&$ that S@&$!
So 5th edition for 2012?
1. Having a basic core with optional layers sounds like a balance nightmare
2. Doing this will make the game less portable.
1. Having a basic core with optional layers sounds like a balance nightmareI don't think the problem is as bad as you think. The add-ons all seem to be in separate spheres. You have an add-on for strategic combat. You have an ad-on for exploration. You have an add-on for social situations.Also, I don't think Mearls is envisioning that individuals at a table would be using different add-ons. The expansions would be table-wide. A DM (or Dm and group) would decide which supplements would apply to a campaign.
2. Doing this will make the game less portable.While I agree this is a cost, I don't think it's a prohibitive cost. 3e's issue was that the game was unbalanced in unpredictable ways given the combo of supplements. If the core is meticulously balanced, then it's easier to make sure each option is balanced. So a DM/group would only be choosing expansions based on the style of play that's right for them, not because Complete Hacker is overpowered, or because if you use Spelunker Power in conjunction with Drama Queens of Eberron, you can make the ultra-powerful Mushroom Princess build.
I was thinking of one player using the core Fighter as laid out in the Core book compared to another player using piles and piles of optional material.
3E was unbalanced in unpredictable ways using just the Players Handbook.
in terms of balance, it doesn't need to be unbalanced for there to be a disconnect between what table A and table B are playing.
no, that is as bad as i think. even worse, they way you describe it, because it sounds like a money grab...multiple rulebooks for what used to require one. this of course will lead to confusion about what products you need, completely undermining the entire goal of simplicity....much like essentials has
If, instead, Core Plus is talking about doing what I think it's doing, and breaking up the printed rules into various splatbooks for us to drop money on to have a complete system...that would be a disappointingly transparent money grab.
I sort of see what Mike is proposing as requiring a level of maturity and responsibility that I don't think you can reasonably expect from RPG players on the whole.
There are large sections of the D&D community who use everything regardless of its intended purpose for the sole reason of having the most customizable PC possible.
There is also the inevitability of unintended consequences, with CharOp finding unintended combos in books having nothing to do with combat and players allowed to use books that don't have any direct bearing on the game being run being allowed to build special snowflakes that melt under the first sign of stress.
Unless all these options are released simultaneously with the core mechanic, I will be sorely vexed.
If, instead, Core Plus is talking about doing what I think it's doing, and breaking up the printed rules into various splatbooks for us to drop money on to have a complete system...that would be a disappointingly transparent money grab.If the core book is a single short book for basic characters, perfect for casual gamers and pick-up games, which is what I think Mearls is describing, it's not a money grab at all. Rather than having to purchase a $35 PHB, and a $35 DMG, you buy a single $25 Corebook and you're good to go.If you want options, you buy the $35 book on Mini Combat, or a $35 book on Political Play, or a $35 book on Expanded Skills.It's only more expensive if you want to play with all the options. But I think most people would be thrilled having to buy only one or two books for a campaign.I am curious how Monster Manuals would work on this system. Would there be a "Core" Monster Manual with only the barebones for basic creatures, and then each expansion would have its own Monster Manual giving the expansion rules for those creatures? How would it work if you have a campaign with multiple expansions? That, to me, is the most complicated portion of this concept.
Unless all these options are released simultaneously with the core mechanic, I will be sorely vexed. That's just not how the market works. You can't release five supplements at once. You would release the corebook and then once a month or every other month, you release an expansion. If that bugs you, you should probably stick with 4e for the first year that 5e is out (if it uses such a system). Then you can buy the core and all the expansions in one fell swoop.
I don't buy this whole core with added options line. Its a mess, a bomb just waiting to go off. A simple game needs to remain simple or it will cease to be so. The only way for a game to remain simple is to never add the complexity, optional or not. If there is a need for a simple D&D, we need two D&Ds, one simple and one complex, and we need to keep the simple D&D free of the complexities and the two games separate from each other.
There are large sections of the D&D community who use everything regardless of its intended purpose for the sole reason of having the most customizable PC possible.I don't see why that's a problem. If their gaming group uses every option, then let them have fun.
There is also the inevitability of unintended consequences, with CharOp finding unintended combos in books having nothing to do with combat and players allowed to use books that don't have any direct bearing on the game being run being allowed to build special snowflakes that melt under the first sign of stress.I don't think that's something we can particularly control. Birds gotta fly, optimizers gotta optimize. If the spheres are distinctive enough, then this should be less of an issue than with prior editions. Right now, because all the spheres are tossed together, you have combat powers that boost skills, skill powers that boost combat, and you end with Diplomancer and Intimidamancer builds.In a system where social skills, exploratory skills, and minis combat are kept rigidly separated, the designers won't be throw in combat powers that boost skills and skill powers to boost combat. You might end up with fewer unintended synergies.
Then we get another Edition War
Then we get another Edition WarI think edition wars are a necessary consequence of new editions and an internet to complain about them in.
It becomes a problem when the options have a purpose and players use them with no regard for that purpose.
Its all theory. It might sound good, but I think it will be a disaster in practice.
if you intentionally release a half-complete edition then you're just being reckless.