I like it!

It seems that the designers are moving towards a system that is more rule-less. The option to have no tabletop with miniatures, etc. is especially promising. Cowboys and indians needs rules - but a playing board that we can see is not needed. I only need my imagination, and a few numbers to stick to. I really like that you can split your move before and after your action.
I think it's nice that they put in support for no board play, but we did it with a board after 3 years of boardless 3.5.
This system is fast. If it stays fast, I wouldn't be adverse to actually keeping the game on the board.
I feel the same way. I was not a fan of having to use miniatures and so on. I love the more basic concept being used. I think less is more.
I could not disagree more. A ruleless system seems to me susceptible to abuse by both DMs and players. My group and I like tactical combat; we love the map. But to each his/her own, I guess.

 

"What is the sort of thing that I do care about is a failure to seriously evaluate what does and doesn't work in favor of a sort of cargo cult posturing. And yes, it's painful to read design notes columns that are all just "So D&D 3.5 sort of had these problems. We know people have some issues with them. What a puzzler! But we think we have a solution in the form of X", where X is sort of a half-baked version of an idea that 4e executed perfectly well and which worked fine." - Lesp

I hear you - but I think D&D played on the tabletop too much becomes the short bus version of chess. I.e. they think they are being so very advanced and complicated... But chess will always be too complicated for us D&D players. The game triggered my imagination when I was a kid. When I played in my teens, we could go on for 2-3 sessions without rolling a single die. It was a game of story-building and negotiation. 
boardless and the complexity of the shapes of the spells don't sit well with me. 
every caster with area attacks  will want to know exactly where everyone else is, to maximise the impact of his shiny new spell. this has been true ever since the invention of a 6ft radius fireball, and is one more way for the DM to gimp players.

giving that much power back to the dm, seems like a bad idea for anyoned but very good DMs.  
Here be dragons: IMAGE(http://tinyurl.com/cydyvkj/.gif)IMAGE(http://tinyurl.com/c54g6ac/.gif)IMAGE(http://tinyurl.com/csw6fhj/.gif)IMAGE(http://tinyurl.com/cbxbgmp/.gif)IMAGE(http://tinyurl.com/cz7v5bd/.gif)IMAGE(http://tinyurl.com/ccg9eld/.gif)IMAGE(http://tinyurl.com/c8szhnn/.gif)IMAGE(http://tinyurl.com/cp68b5u/.gif)
56767308 wrote:
Sadly, I don't think this has anything to do with wanting Next to be a great game. It has to do with wanting Next to determine who won the Edition War. [...] For those of us who just want D&D Next to be a good game, this is getting to be a real drag.
57870548 wrote:
I think I figured it out. This program is a character builder, not a character builder. It teaches patience, empathy, and tolerance. All most excellent character traits.
@Svempa
Kinda like Diplomacy, but the fistfights are in-game? I can get behind that.

@whitebaron
At least it'll weed out bad DMs. I've never believed in divining rods but thanks WoTC!
Thing is if you're DM is a jerk you have the right to not play with him. I for one find a that a bunch of rules that you need to look up every time you want to do something just slows down the game.
Except chess has absolutely no variable qualities, is exactly the same, absolutely no concept of terrain, and has no modifying quantities at all. Chess is always won by removing the King of the other player off the board.

D&D has incredibly varied and different terrain for every fight. Are you fighting on a featureless grass plain every time? Then kick your DM in the shin. There are rooms. These rooms have things in them. Alchemists labs. Furniture. Frying pans. You fight on top of flying ships. On the side of a cliff. So deep underground there are pits of molten rock. You can always use the scenery to your advantage, or find somewhat to prevent your opponent from using it to his. Your opponents constantly change; rare is it you fight the same opponents over and over again. Your opponents have tactical options and can do interesting things. A D&D combat is won by accomplishing a goal. Yes, sometimes this goal is simple - survive. The best fights have a separate goal attached to them. Yes, you're at the bottom of a cliff after crashing your magical boat because it was sabotaged, and now the saboteurs have come to pick you off as you regain consciousness - you must survive, drive off your opponents, and also save the magical crystal that let your ship fly before it blows up and just kills everybody there.

I suggest if you don't like rules, try playing a game other than D&D - try Risus. I'm sure you'd really like it.

Supporting an edition you like does not make you an edition warrior. Demanding that everybody else support your edition makes you an edition warrior.

Why do I like 13th Age? Because I like D&D: http://magbonch.wordpress.com/2013/10/16/first-impressions-13th-age/

AzoriusGuildmage- "I think that you simply spent so long playing it, especially in your formative years with the hobby, that you've long since rationalized or houseruled away its oddities, and set it in your mind as the standard for what is and isn't reasonable in an rpg."

@Svempa
Kinda like Diplomacy, but the fistfights are in-game? I can get behind that.



Well sort of... But when we had to roll a d20 die, they had a d20 placed on "20" and just pretended to roll a die behind (beyond?) the screen... And then they snatched the really rolled d20 and hid it (pointing toward the falsely 20 die), shouting "I rolled a 20!"

That is how they do it. Beware.

  
Thing is if you're DM is a jerk you have the right to not play with him. I for one find a that a bunch of rules that you need to look up every time you want to do something just slows down the game.



this is a quite simplistic (in my opinion too simplistic) approach.

a) you and your DM might not even know  what he's doing wrong, the game then "just sucks"
b) people tend to play with friends. even if you have no good DM in the group, you may still want to play an RPG, and better rules help with that, as they alleviate the need for the DM to be good at all thre pillars of DMing: social skills, making or using rules/mathematics and storytelling. 
Here be dragons: IMAGE(http://tinyurl.com/cydyvkj/.gif)IMAGE(http://tinyurl.com/c54g6ac/.gif)IMAGE(http://tinyurl.com/csw6fhj/.gif)IMAGE(http://tinyurl.com/cbxbgmp/.gif)IMAGE(http://tinyurl.com/cz7v5bd/.gif)IMAGE(http://tinyurl.com/ccg9eld/.gif)IMAGE(http://tinyurl.com/c8szhnn/.gif)IMAGE(http://tinyurl.com/cp68b5u/.gif)
56767308 wrote:
Sadly, I don't think this has anything to do with wanting Next to be a great game. It has to do with wanting Next to determine who won the Edition War. [...] For those of us who just want D&D Next to be a good game, this is getting to be a real drag.
57870548 wrote:
I think I figured it out. This program is a character builder, not a character builder. It teaches patience, empathy, and tolerance. All most excellent character traits.
Yes, using miniatures and a grid is very useful for combat, movement and magic effects, but not just in D&D, in every roleplaying game I played, even the "narrative" ones like World of Darkness.

No, this convenience it's not enough to force everyone to use "squares" as the standard measure system, or needing a grid to understand what's happening in the scene (coffcoff4theditioncoffcoff).
(EDITED)
Except chess has absolutely no variable qualities, is exactly the same, absolutely no concept of terrain, and has no modifying quantities at all. Chess is always won by removing the King of the other player off the board.

D&D has incredibly varied and different terrain for every fight. Are you fighting on a featureless grass plain every time? Then kick your DM in the shin. There are rooms. These rooms have things in them. Alchemists labs. Furniture. Frying pans. You fight on top of flying ships. On the side of a cliff. So deep underground there are pits of molten rock. You can always use the scenery to your advantage, or find somewhat to prevent your opponent from using it to his. Your opponents constantly change; rare is it you fight the same opponents over and over again. Your opponents have tactical options and can do interesting things. A D&D combat is won by accomplishing a goal. Yes, sometimes this goal is simple - survive. The best fights have a separate goal attached to them. Yes, you're at the bottom of a cliff after crashing your magical boat because it was sabotaged, and now the saboteurs have come to pick you off as you regain consciousness - you must survive, drive off your opponents, and also save the magical crystal that let your ship fly before it blows up and just kills everybody there.

I suggest if you don't like rules, try playing a game other than D&D - try Risus. I'm sure you'd really like it.



I've played the fourth edition of D&D for countless sessions. I played as a DM on the Virtual Tabletop Beta a lot of times, and also as a player for more sessions than I would care to remember. I have also played it IRL many times. I was a somewhat poor DM. Perhaps even a bad player. But D&D is NOT more difficult or advanced than chess. If you doubt me, just go on a chess site in the cloud and play a few games...
D&D has incredibly varied and different terrain for every fight. Are you fighting on a featureless grass plain every time? Then kick your DM in the shin. There are rooms. These rooms have things in them. Alchemists labs. Furniture. Frying pans. You fight on top of flying ships. On the side of a cliff. So deep underground there are pits of molten rock. You can always use the scenery to your advantage, or find somewhat to prevent your opponent from using it to his. Your opponents constantly change; rare is it you fight the same opponents over and over again. Your opponents have tactical options and can do interesting things. A D&D combat is won by accomplishing a goal. Yes, sometimes this goal is simple - survive. The best fights have a separate goal attached to them. Yes, you're at the bottom of a cliff after crashing your magical boat because it was sabotaged, and now the saboteurs have come to pick you off as you regain consciousness - you must survive, drive off your opponents, and also save the magical crystal that let your ship fly before it blows up and just kills everybody there.

Except that there is a lot more to D&D than just fighting and combat. To me, D&D has always been about the adventure and the quest and not so much focused on gaining tactical advantage in various situations. While a role-playing game can simulate a tactical wargame, it's not an essential component in a gaming session. I find that some players like that stuff, others don't.

I suggest if you don't like rules, try playing a game other than D&D - try Risus. I'm sure you'd really like it.

I don't think that anyone ever really suggested that D&D not have rules. I think that the point was that there are various depths of rules you can install into a game and that the playtest version seems to fit the style of quite a few players. By the way, Risus has rules, too.

The difficult thing here is to design a game that will satisfy the "realism" gamer and the "playability" gamer at the same time. The intent for Next is to build a simplified and playable rules skeleton to satisfy one group, then offer additional layers to satisfy the other group. It's not fair to pick on the minimalist gamer because he doesn't like the added details, any more than it is fair to pick on the maximust gamer because he likes so many.

Just my two coppers.

Marv (Finarvyn) Master of Mutants (MA and GW) Playing 5E D&D and liking it! OD&D player since 1975

I really like it also....  for what it is, a core rule set, i think it is pretty non-offensive, fast, interesting.... and best of all, adaptable.

Definitely I like role play aspects of DnD but also tactical -- i DM using a mixture of both (with battle mat and minis), my favorite DMs do too.... the way i see it, using this basic rule set with some tactical aspects thrown in is pretty much how i already play and describes the games and DMs that i seek out....

So good start!
I really like it also....  for what it is, a core rule set, i think it is pretty non-offensive, fast, interesting.... and best of all, adaptable.




I agree with you. I'm already seeing the possibilities here with 5e and older editions. Until this actually comes out this will probably be my edition of choice. All of my 3.5, 4e, and other d20 stuff will easily be adaptable to this game when I'm ready to expand things beyond 3rd level. 
I wanted to hate this, but had too much fun playtesting this with my stepson yesterday. I'm looking forward to trying this out with my regular group as well. (All signed the NDA)

I suggest if you don't like rules, try playing a game other than D&D - try Risus. I'm sure you'd really like it.



Not to be a negative nancy, but I've seen/heard about this Risus on FIVE different boards today, all in threads about the playtest. Please don't advertise other game systems while playtesting rules. I'm not even affiliated with these guys but I can't even convey how rustled my jimmies are.



Well sort of... But when we had to roll a d20 die, they had a d20 placed on "20" and just pretended to roll a die behind (beyond?) the screen... And then they snatched the really rolled d20 and hid it (pointing toward the falsely 20 die), shouting "I rolled a 20!"

That is how they do it. Beware.

  



Oh, so there were fistfights in AND out of game?
Because that would cause fistfights at my table.
Or at least, a lot of screaming all at once.
I suggest if you don't like rules, try playing a game other than D&D - try Risus. I'm sure you'd really like it.



Not to be a negative nancy, but I've seen/heard about this Risus on FIVE different boards today, all in threads about the playtest. Please don't advertise other game systems while playtesting rules. I'm not even affiliated with these guys but I can't even convey how rustled my jimmies are.



Well sort of... But when we had to roll a d20 die, they had a d20 placed on "20" and just pretended to roll a die behind (beyond?) the screen... And then they snatched the really rolled d20 and hid it (pointing toward the falsely 20 die), shouting "I rolled a 20!"

That is how they do it. Beware.

  



Oh, so there were fistfights in AND out of game?
Because that would cause fistfights at my table.
Or at least, a lot of screaming all at once.

Well... This dastardly tactic was not revealed to me until years later. They were all in on it, basically. Perhaps I would have gotten mad at the time, but what they did basically was to cheat at times when the plot would have gone **** up if they didn't make a roll, or if it really advanced their characters. Isn't that what it's all about? Character and plot advancement? Clearing out a 30x30' room filled with kobolds with a fireball only goes so far, I think...
I just get more and more excited as the playtest goes on. I'm already picking out what I want to DM first (thinking of updating The Sinister Secrets of Saltmarsh trilogy), and looking to convert a few of my old characters.

As I "get over" a few of my knee jerk reactions (no AoO, skills) I'm really starting to enjoy this new system.  
'That's just, like, your opinion, man.'
I just get more and more excited as the playtest goes on. I'm already picking out what I want to DM first (thinking of updating The Sinister Secrets of Saltmarsh trilogy), and looking to convert a few of my old characters.

As I "get over" a few of my knee jerk reactions (no AoO, skills) I'm really starting to enjoy this new system.  



I too was thinking about converting Saltmarsh after we finished our first playtest session. That was the most Scooby-Doo-rific module in all of D&D history. An old manor on the cliffs by the sea? Haunted, you say? Game on!
A lot of things I found in the playtest were similar to the houserules we'd been using for months beforehand for Basic and 1e, so it agrees with my rules-light taste. I see a lovely trend of intuitiveness: if you have a disadvantage, you have Disadvantage; if your background skill is relevant to any roll, you get the bonus.
The thing is, it's a lot easier to take a game meant for imagination and put the room / location onto a miniatures board or a gaming table than it is to design a game around miniature use. It's a nice handy-dandy feature for people who like eye candy and blast templates, but you'll reach more people and players with a $50 book and some graph paper vs a $50 book and $25-$100 in miniatures and scenery.
Thing is if you're DM is a jerk you have the right to not play with him. I for one find a that a bunch of rules that you need to look up every time you want to do something just slows down the game.

Couldnt agree more. The rule that I always follow as a DM is to ensure the players are having fun. I rarely kill off PCs and when and if I do, it is because they really stuck their necks out there...I just use the dice to help tell the story.
We playtested last night for about an hour, and from what I can tell I love the way the new system runs. I encouraged my players to be imaginative and my wife put the new rules and feel of the game to the test. Intially she wanted to aquire some tree sap...reasons she did not share. So I informed her that the nearest group of viable trees were the tree near the ogre's lair. The discovery of the cave concealed by the trees did not deter her on her mission of gathering sap. Seeing this determanation, I decided to just let her have the precious tree sap her wizard so desperatly needed.
 
The ensuing encounter with the ogre was difficult for most of my players to handle. The groups rather squishy mage stood at the cave opening and thats where we hit a major roadbump. For some reason the player running our wizard and I could not achieve the required level of communication to run the encounter. She asked me where she could stand and still see the ogre. I was not using the battle grid method for this encounter, instead I was running a "theater of the mind" style game. I did have a rough sketch of the battlefield drawn out to help the players visualize the area and I told her she could see the ogre as long as she stood at the entrance of the cave. She became frustrated because she felt she could not get a good grasp on what was happening in this battle.
Can you say "Ruh-roh!"

I'm glad to hear someone else is looking at the classics. I'll probably run Night of the Walking Dead, as well, as that's my go-to for every adventure.
'That's just, like, your opinion, man.'
Howdy folks,

I've moved this thread to Playtest Packet Discussion where it is more on topic.

Thanks.  

All around helpful simian

Saltmarsh!!!

The first adventure I ever played.

My dwarf became afraid of ceilings because of that adventure.

Found the secret niche in the fireplace, attacked by bats.

Walked down the hall a short time later, ambushed by the ooze/slime whatever that hung from the ceiling.

Great fun.

Edition wars kill players,Dungeons and Dragons needs every player it can get.