Well, that was interesting...Norwescon.

Monte and Rob were in a panel (well technically are still in a panel as I type this, I had to leave early) and Monte made one comment that has totally 180ed my attitude about Next. I hope he actually types it up and posts it because my paraphrase (in early editions there was a 'right' way to play D&D, what their looking to do now is make what ever 'your' way to play D&D is, the right way for you.

Pleasantly surprised. 
Monte said this on his personal blog some time ago.  I am glad you are realizing that he is not for 3.75 or for forcing people to play any way.  I'm not condescending to you either.  I realize his personal blog may not get read regularly.  I am honestly just glad the word is getting out thats all.



 
I hope to catch the future of D&D panel tomorrow
If 'you' is used as in a table sense I can see this working, however, if 'you' is individual I would be really interested to see how that all works out.
Hope to see you there 5Efan.

Yeah Alynn, I grant that it would have to be table worked to a degree. 
Glad to hear this jon!
Hope to see you there 5Efan.

Yeah Alynn, I grant that it would have to be table worked to a degree. 



Well for some things it will be table of course and for others it will be individual.  Some things will be mostly an individual decision but perhaps a table one occasionally.

For example


  • Alignment will always be a table decision.  It's kind of hard to make it a case by case basis.

  • Vancian Casting could be individual if the group is ambivalent about it.  So some take a vancian caster and others take another option.

  • In another group though there may be players that consider Vancian really bad and for them its a dealbreaker.  So at their table it is a table decision. 




Yes, D&D Next is strongly leaning towards trying to design-in support for whatever play style is desired, whether that be some previous edition of the game or some other variant.

What is a risk here is trying to design a game for every possible desire is one could end up with a game no one wants to play.

In such a game, what expectation would you have when coming to a new game? I think this could transform the game form one where a player can easily move from game to game with a consistent set of expectations to one where every game is unique and you have no idea what to expect when joining a new game.

I am very concerned with this direction.  It sounds great in theory, but I suspect that it will all fall apart in actual practice.

So , in summary, I am not in favor of modular game where every table must pick and choose which modules of the game are in effect and this choice has dramatic effects on game play.
Wait, so you're saying that if they succeed in their goal of making it so that everyone is happy, no one will want to play it?

Huh?


The only group of people who won't want to play a game like that are the people who get personally offended that anyone might want to play slightly differently than they do.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
Wait, so you're saying that if they succeed in their goal of making it so that everyone is happy, no one will want to play it?

Huh?


The only group of people who won't want to play a game like that are the people who get personally offended that anyone might want to play slightly differently than they do.



Hey, this is the internet.  Isn't everyone like that?
Wait, so you're saying that if they succeed in their goal of making it so that everyone is happy, no one will want to play it?



To be fair, the poster said 'trying to design', rather than 'succeeding in designing':

What is a risk here is trying to design a game for every possible desire is one could end up with a game no one wants to play.



If they succeed in making a game that can cater for everyone - without increasing gameplay overhead substantially - then that'll be great, and a lot of people will rejoice, and give WotC their money. Obviously some people will still be unhappy, and prefer to play other versions of D&D, Pathfinder, or whatever; that's just the way of things.

The danger is if they're not able to perfect the modular system in the time / budget that they have, we might end up with a game system that's more complex to get into than a 'non-modular' D&D, or a system where the core rules get more attention than the modules some people want to play with. Obviously saying that would be a game that "no-one wants to play" is an overstatement, but yes, this is the Internet after all

I really want to hear more on how the modular system will work in practice; I think that would resolve a lot of concerns.

...If they succeed in making a game that can cater for everyone - without increasing gameplay overhead substantially - then that'll be great, and a lot of people will rejoice, and give WotC their money. ... The danger is if they're not able to perfect the modular system...



Right.  I think it unlikley that this modular system will work as intended.  I think they are setting themselves up for failure.
...If they succeed in making a game that can cater for everyone - without increasing gameplay overhead substantially - then that'll be great, and a lot of people will rejoice, and give WotC their money. ... The danger is if they're not able to perfect the modular system...



Right.  I think it unlikley that this modular system will work as intended.  I think they are setting themselves up for failure.



I think your idea that people could go from campaign to campaign freely in previous editions is not true.  Perhaps you could in your area but with extensive houserules in all editions that was not true.  I do though think that house names will arise for various groupings of rules and people will figure out the style of game they like based on these house names.
...If they succeed in making a game that can cater for everyone - without increasing gameplay overhead substantially - then that'll be great, and a lot of people will rejoice, and give WotC their money. ... The danger is if they're not able to perfect the modular system...



Right.  I think it unlikley that this modular system will work as intended.  I think they are setting themselves up for failure.



I think your idea that people could go from campaign to campaign freely in previous editions is not true.  ...



Actually, it has always been generally true.  Not that you could necessarily transfer a character, but a player generally knows what to expect and can be briefed on the generally few house rules present in a particular game.

Who knwos?  This new system may work out to be the greatest thing to hit the gaming world on decades.  I just kinda doubt it and think that trying to please everyone all too often ends up pleasing no one.

We'll see... In the end, I am almost certain to end up playing in it - especially since my DM is a WotC employee.  Surprised
Honest question here, and I don't mean to be a jerk about it:

What benefit does expressing your pessimistic opinion serve?  I mean, it's fine to have your opinion, but is there anything that is actually accomplished by stating it?  What suggestions do you have for avoiding your expected result? 
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
because we pessimists tend to look at the larger picture to see potential issues that could crop up depending on execution? i'd much rather be ready for trouble in case it occurs then get blindsided by it due to too much optimism.

if a reason is given for the pessimism, it's feedback. not everyone is a fan of the ideas the 5th ed crew have been leaking and until we see something, we'll give our feedback. until i see the end result i don't see the gain of simply going "well done! fantastic! jolly good! bravo!" etcetera, etcetera. if i were publishing details on a system i am making would much rather have people go "gee this could turn out bad" then simply "YES. THAT THING. YES."

the first gives me something to possibly look at when revising the mechanics or at least another opinion. the second gives me nothing constructive.
There is constructive criticism and then there is just doomsaying.  Criticism is potentially useful.  Doomsaying is not.

The guys is say - "being all things to all people may end up making none happy"

Ok gotcha on that.  It's a fundamental overaching premise of 5e so it probably won't change.  Next. 
Well, panel got canceled and was replaced by a panel on the future of gaming with none of our guys on the panel.

Cry
What is a risk here is trying to design a game for every possible desire is one could end up with a game no one wants to play.

Or rather a game that actually isn't "a" game but a lot of seperate incompatible games on which they just slap a single brand to pretend that we all are playing the same game 
What is a risk here is trying to design a game for every possible desire is one could end up with a game no one wants to play.

Or rather a game that actually isn't "a" game but a lot of seperate incompatible games on which they just slap a single brand to pretend that we all are playing the same game 


Ok, so be constructive.  How should they do it?  How can they connect it together so that they do it properly?

If they do pull it off, to their wildest dreams of how awesome it could be, would that be acceptable to you?  If so, how would you help them do it, rather than simply insisting that they'll fail?
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition

how would you help them do it

Not at all. It's not my job to help them do their job. Really, I am not invested in it. It's their job to try to create an offer I find interesting and when they are done I'll judge it and either buy it or ignore it.  Until them I am willing to cut them some slack and take most of what they say as marketingt-speech. Just like I don't hold it against Unilever if I am not chased by a horde of beatiful women after applying Axe.

Really, if they fail and Hasbro shuts down D&D so what? There are so many companies competiting for my free time that I can only use a fraction of what they offer even if I had unlimited money, I just couldn't ever have enough time. One option more or less doesn't matter.


I just don't get it why they need to pretend that it all is the same game. Maybe because Hasbro won't let them support X games at the same time, so they try to cloak what they're doing.


how would you help them do it

Not at all. It's not my job to help them do their job. Really, I am not invested in it. It's their job to try to create an offer I find interesting and when they are done I'll judge it and either buy it or ignore it.  Until them I am willing to cut them some slack and take most of what they say as marketingt-speech. Just like I don't hold it against Unilever if I am not chased by a horde of beatiful women after applying Axe.



How exactly are you conflating "providing constructive feedback" with "doing their jobs for them"? They aren't even remotely in the same category. Unless, of course, you think they will expect you to be writing 75K+ words perhaps on the game? (Spoiler alert: that seems unlikely.)

There is a huge world of difference between providing feedback which is constructive and useful (instead of simply doomsaying everything and screaming that it's not going to work without a shred of evidence to support such a claim), and designing and writing games.

For those confused on how DDN's modular rules might work, this may provide some insight: http://www.tor.com/blogs/2012/11/the-world-of-darkness-shines-when-it-abandons-canon

@mikemearls: Uhhh... do you really not see all the 3e/4e that's basically the entire core system?

 

It is entirely unnecessary to denigrate someone else's approach to gaming in order to validate your own.


how would you help them do it

Not at all. It's not my job to help them do their job. Really, I am not invested in it. It's their job to try to create an offer I find interesting and when they are done I'll judge it and either buy it or ignore it.  Until them I am willing to cut them some slack and take most of what they say as marketingt-speech. Just like I don't hold it against Unilever if I am not chased by a horde of beatiful women after applying Axe.

Really, if they fail and Hasbro shuts down D&D so what? There are so many companies competiting for my free time that I can only use a fraction of what they offer even if I had unlimited money, I just couldn't ever have enough time. One option more or less doesn't matter.


I just don't get it why they need to pretend that it all is the same game. Maybe because Hasbro won't let them support X games at the same time, so they try to cloak what they're doing.



Ok, fair enough.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
Sign In to post comments