Is Next Boring?

I'll put my own two cents in later, but for now I'll skip the preamble and get to the point:
Some prople have said they find Next boring thus far. Do you agree or disagree and why?
1 square =1 yard = 1 meter. "Fits all playstyles" the obvious choice Orzel is the mayor of Ranger-town. Favored enemies for Rangers
58033128 wrote:
Seems like community isn't going to give up calling mapless "Theatre of the Mind".  In the interest of equal pretentiousness, I'd like to start a motion to refer to map combat as "Tableau Vivant".  


D&D Home Page - What Class Are You? - Build A Character - D&D Compendium

Nope, not for us.

To start the firestorm, I think has a lot to do with the players and DM, more than the game itself.

We have been running a weekly (sometimes multiple times a week) campaign that has gone from Caves to Isle, and my players love it.  We do a lot of RP, players are generally happy with character abilities and choices.

Combat is fast, and to an extent deadly, which allows us to move the story along, and not get bogged down in tactical combat for hours.  We still use the battle-mat, and do tactical, but the combat moves much faster.

We space out our 5MWD periods so that it more feels like a 6HWD than anything else.

Ya, some stuff needs tweaked and we know changes will happen, but so far, pleases us.

"The turning of the tide always begins with one soldier's decision to head back into the fray"

D&D Next is boring visually, with lack of art, style, shaded boxes and sidebars. 

D&D Next is not boring systematically though. We're having fun with it and so its a good sign the system delivers IMO. YMMV



Yan
Montréal, Canada
@Plaguescarred on twitter

Yeah, we're having a fun time with it, and have rotated people in and out at the table. Even the folks for whom this is their first game at all - or those who are still new in general - find it easy to pick up. I think that speaks to success for the playtest so far, regardless of what the naysayers say.

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.

I haven't had the opportunity to play since the latest packet but there were things that we found to be a bit.....well boring. For the most part, the options are just too limited. I know that they can't put out everything and I suspect that with more options it will be more fun, but the few times we've played the last packet, it definitily didn't feel as dynamic or heroic as it is for us in 4E. But mostly, I blame races for being rather "meh" and the low options for consistant magic being cast. For our wizard, it got boring casting magic missile 3 out of 5 rounds due to "saving" their big spells.
Guess I'm a lone bored voice for now.

I find the classes are shadows of their former selves, the monsters are mostly pitiful, and the play experience is dull at the table as a result.

Could be me, though. Perhaps I lack the skill to DM this properly. But if so, that's not a problem in my regular 4E game.

For my group D&D takes the place of poker night & Sunday football. It has to be at least that fun and right now Next is not.

I'm bored but only because I'm trying to use the DM guidance, monsters and recommended DCs in the interest of testing what's in front of me.


I find that once I totally rip up any DM guidance, monsters and recommended DCs, I have a lot of fun. the system is cool and the classes are neat (more than a few tweaks needed but it's early days).


So as written it's dull but a bit of ingenuity and we have ourselves a good game - sort of like every other RPG.

Very, very boring

5E:

Lacks any sort of tactical depth
Too much at-will spam even from casters
Monsters are boring sacks of HP
An overall mundanity covering all aspects of the game
Lack of climatic/strategic options for non-spellcasters
Lack of Encounter powers or an acceptable substitute
Play based on attrition over the adventuring day, where only the last battle matters
Lack of cinematic action and cool powers
Races, feats and specialties boring and insignificant
Too much same old crap from the past 30 years, not enough new and shiny.
...whatever
Currently, no. However, it has the potential to be boring, and I hope it doesn't.
No
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
I play Gamma World 4th Edition regularly. Practically once a week. System-wise, D&DN is extremely similar to this 20 year old TSR game. We have a lot of fun playing Gamma World, but that's because we've known each other for 20 years and we know how to make any roleplaying game fun. I however, don't mistake the fun I have playing Gamma World with the basic reality: Gamma World 4e is both a very boring and unbalanced system. Why? Because a great deal of what happens is beyond the decision and control of the players. Where you do have decisions, there is almost always a grossly dominant option. Characters classes and races that don't enhance combat have little to contribute to combat scenes. Likewise, several critical skills are class exclusive so that certain classes are required just for a party to explore. Those skill exclusive classes are generally less effective than the other classes at everything else though. D&DN seems all too famliar to me, except I don't have the gaming equivalent of Stockholm syndrome to explain its appeal.
Yes, it is boring to me. Very boring. There is nothing in there that I find awesome and really new. DnDNext - at the moment - feels like a "been there done that" kind of game for me. I stopped playtesting because of the boredom I felt and I cannot find players who are interested in playtesting anymore because of this. That's how bad it is to me and the people I play with on a regular basis.

I find the lack of real tactical options especially frustrating. Combats are fast but narratively not interesting. So they are fast, but not in a good way. I would like to see more drama like there is in 4E combats (the typical chain of: let's fight! -> oh my goodness, how are we going to survive this? -> we can do this if we together well -> we finally have the upper hand! -> take this and die, BBEG!). 

I am really trying hard to like it and interest people around me in it, but I will have to see new and very different things in order to be able to continue playtesting.
The vancian spellcasters quickly make the game old.
The addition of the weak at-will didn't change much.
Fighters and Monks just compensate the vancian return to not make this feel old like 2nd edition.

This game really needs new blood, and not just vancian with spell points.

I can't believe that I hear again the spellcasters always talking about what spells are left like if it is the most important thing in the world. This is what makes this DDN playtest smells like very, very, old shoes.
No, because I am an interesting DM and My DM is also interesting.

But I do find my workload to be heavier as I worry about balancing and correctly adjudicating all the missing pieces.

Orzel, Halfelven son of Zel, Mystic Ranger, Bane to Dragons, Death to Undeath, Killer of Abyssals, King of the Wilds. Constitution Based Class for Next!

It's boring because the monsters aren't challenging due to the player's expertise dice.
It's also boring because the modifiers are too low and there isn't much difference between low level and high level players.
The magic and weapon and save bonuses are boring.

I purpose moving the DCs up to a max of 30
the levels back up to 30
keeping the ability mods the same ability-10/2
but adding a level bonus which is level / 6 so that level is just as important as natural ability
situation combat modifiers need to be at least -10 to +10
magic items +3 ain't going to cut it, too boring. Need magic items -10 or +10

I've been testing this alone and with players for months and months and we tend to agree.
bounded accuracy,
advantage disadvantage,
expertise dice,
all interesting ideas but all waste game time

multiple actions and reactions are exciting in DND5.

the game needs to stop limiting spells and let all but area spells be at-will with fixed damage.
multiple spells per turn can increase that kind of damage
multiple adjacent weapon attacks can increase overall damage.
area spells should be limited by encounter

weapon damage needs to be constant

download my dnd tracker @ kira3696.tripod.com
I my personal experience, it´s as boring as you make it. I can play with the old black box, and have a lot of fun. BUT as a playtester for a few sessions it was a somewhat boring process. I´m pretty sure it´s due to the unfinished nature of things and the annoyance caused by broken math, as well as lack of depth of monsters and character options.

Sure the RP moments where cool, but you don't really need a system to do it. Not mixing Roleplaying whit system, in my personal experience the playtest felt boring.
Spellcasters need a rule to forbid them from saying : "I have [nomenclature of spells or slots left]" everytime the players plan to do something. It makes them feel they are overly important and bores their comrades.

Something like
Magic works better unannounced : If you name a spell you can cast, you lose the ability to cast this spell until your next long rest.

After all, it's the vancian spellcasters who choose to manage daily ressources, not the rest of the group Tongue Out
Nope, not boring.
Without the checklists of powers and feats in some previous editions, our group's combats are significantly faster, and players have felt freedom to improvise and use the environment in ways that were not encouraged in 4e. DDN is much more dynamic for us.
Nope, not boring. Without the checklists of powers and feats in some previous editions, our group's combats are significantly faster, and players have felt freedom to improvise and use the environment in ways that were not encouraged in 4e. DDN is much more dynamic for us.

Because it was encouraged in 3rd or 2nd edition, of course.

Can I deduce that you really don't like 4th edition ?

There seem to be two primary responses in this thread:

It's boring, because it isn't 4E
It's not boring, because it isn't 4E
...whatever
There seem to be two primary responses in this thread: It's boring, because it isn't 4E It's not boring, because it isn't 4E



It's boring because it doesn't do anything better than Savage Worlds, and does most things worse than Savage Worlds.
No, you can't. I'm in the midst of a 4e campaign, and have been for almost two years. So how about you stop trying to derail the thread.
No, you can't. I'm in the midst of a 4e campaign, and have been for almost two years. So how about you stop trying to derail the thread.

The thread is about subjective points of view.

You just cited 4th edition when the problem was present in more editions, I found it funny, that's all !

So far it has been fun. The range of options right now is very limited and it wouldn't be a viable game long term without the rest of the missing material, but what we have is decent. The classes and skills still need work, but they are heading in the right direction. The monsters are rather underwhelming right now, but the DM has been adjusting.

Honestly, it is already more fun then playing or running 4e. Less "remind when my turn comes up, I'm going to go play a computer game for the next half an hour or so." and more actual playing is a huge improvement on it's own. The rest of the game feels more natural and less forced into a rigid format.

I've used the terrain and improvised actions in 4E all the time. I fail to see how this game promotes it more than any other edition (lack of codified powers, not withstanding). What I felt other editions had was the cool toys PLUS my imagination to make a great RPG. I don't get that feeling currently with D&D:Next. It feels.........hollow somehow.

EDIT: I feel I must again say that it's more or less the Races that I find a little bland. Some things are neither Boring or Exciting, like Saving Throws (which I just shrug at). I do wish we could've kept the idea of melee weapon = Strength, Ranged weapon = Dexterity OUT of next, allowing classes to come up for reason why another attribute could be used but that's just TOO narrative for some groups to handle, I think.
There seem to be two primary responses in this thread: It's boring, because it isn't 4E It's not boring, because it isn't 4E

I wouldn't say those are the primary responses, but they are both responses.

Anyway, I haven't found it boring at all.  And for the record, I love 4E (and I don't find it boring either).  I also enjoyed playing 3.5 for many years (wasn't boring) and way, way back I played 2nd (not boring).

I guess what I am trying to say is that I find D&D very exciting and fun.

It can be fun, but it have nothing to do with the game mechanics and design.  Hell you can have fun with the worst RPG systems,  hell even free-form RP can be alot of fun with the right people...

And this is the thing...i don't found any fun on the game mechanics and design of D&DNext, is not mentally stimulating or anything like that at all...
There seem to be two primary responses in this thread: It's boring, because it isn't 4E It's not boring, because it isn't 4E

I wouldn't say those are the primary responses, but they are both responses.

Anyway, I haven't found it boring at all.  And for the record, I love 4E (and I don't find it boring either).  I also enjoyed playing 3.5 for many years (wasn't boring) and way, way back I played 2nd (not boring).

I guess what I am trying to say is that I find D&D very exciting and fun.


I wouldn't say it too.

Now that there's a new edition incoming, I can't care less about defending 4th edition.
The part I don't like feels boring and (very) old, of course ("I have one fireball, two magic missiles, and one animal growth left, so keep that in mind before doing anything, comrades !"), but the rest is good.

Maybe it can feel boring if you base a big adventure on it, but I didn't play adventures lasting more than two sessions with DDN until now. The options are very limited.


My group is bored - they would rather play any edition or system rather than this - just not enough options currently to keep us interested.  

Perhaps it wouldn't be so bad if this was our first RPG - I have fond memories of the blackbox for a long time - but we already know about all those other possibilities out there in other editions.

We just can't take it.  

Even if it was more exciting, not sure there is really any value in us playing it when we HAVE all those other options.  I saw a reason to move from 2nd, to 3rd, to 4th... 5th isn't giving us anything New.  
Welcome to ZomboniLand - My D&D Blog http://zomboniland.blogspot.com/
Let's say it is not exciting so far.
It's neither terrible, nor great.
To be honest, if it wasn't D&D we wouldn't be considering it. And probably we won't unless things shake up drastically moving forward. 
It can be fun, but it have nothing to do with the game mechanics and design.  Hell you can have fun with the worst RPG systems,  hell even free-form RP can be alot of fun with the right people...

And this is the thing...i don't found any fun on the game mechanics and design of D&DNext, is not mentally stimulating or anything like that at all...



Definitely. What fun was had during our playtest events was had during pure roleplaying moments that had nothing to do with the system. When we actually used the rules, to fight monsters or do whatever, it was pure disappointment.

...whatever
For the most part, I like it just fine.  It feels more like Classic D&D to me than some of the recent offerings that have borne the D&D name.

I do think it could be made more exciting by knocking a couple of points off of the PCs' attack bonus numbers, making them "hit" slightly less often, thus making the monsters a tiny bit more challenging.

If you have to resort to making offensive comments instead of making logical arguments, you deserve to be ignored.

I think the core/chassis of 5th Ed is the best yet, what they end up doing with it, who knows. 

That's why me and mine are taking the 5th Ed base rules, and adding bits we dig from other editions we like. 

Biggest seller of 5th Ed for me is ease of conversions/porting over/dropping stuff in from every other edition.

This is what I wanted 2nd Ed to be.
For the most part, I like it just fine.  It feels more like Classic D&D to me than some of the recent offerings that have borne the D&D name.




Yep, like a cleaned up (mechanically viable, I think kick-ass) Basic/1st Ed.
Some prople have said they find Next boring thus far. Do you agree or disagree and why?

There's not a lot to it, yet.  It's just a small part of what Next will hopefully be.  But, it still seems like we've hardly had time to explore what it offers, and it keeps changing.  I could understand frustrated or confused, but not bored.

- Warlords! Join the 'Officer Country' Group! Join Grognards for 4e, the D&D that changed D&D.


D&D Home Page - What Class Are You? - Build A Character - D&D Compendium

Even if it was more exciting, not sure there is really any value in us playing it when we HAVE all those other options.  I saw a reason to move from 2nd, to 3rd, to 4th... 5th isn't giving us anything New.

I agree 100% with that.
Even the expertise dice are not enough innovative enough to compare with the leap known between most previous editions (2nd edition was just a hop). And this edition even takes a step back with the return of full vancian spellcasting.

It can be fun, but it have nothing to do with the game mechanics and design.  Hell you can have fun with the worst RPG systems,  hell even free-form RP can be alot of fun with the right people...

And this is the thing...i don't found any fun on the game mechanics and design of D&DNext, is not mentally stimulating or anything like that at all...



Definitely. What fun was had during our playtest events was had during pure roleplaying moments that had nothing to do with the system. When we actually used the rules, to fight monsters or do whatever, it was pure disappointment.




Same here. The skill DCs are a bad joke for the Rogue. Nothing can hurt the tank-fighter. The archer fighter can't miss.

The casters don't bother to waste their spells, they keep "saving them" for some mythical "tough fight". Since when I test the mechanics I run them as written I know the secret, there IS NO TOUGH FIGHT. Those crappy +4 to hit AC 18 monsters ARE the allegedly tough challange!

Why are we rolling dice here? The combat system could be replaced by "the PCs win all fights, describe a dramatic encounter that sounds interesting but were no one is seriously hurt unless they are not a tank and do something deliberately stupid" and the combat system would be BETTER.

The system may or may not be any good. But till they fix the monsters it's not worth wasting time on actually playing.
I find discussions shortly after a new packet release to be the most exciting part of Next thus far.  It's fun to see how people react to changes and it's fun to see how I personally get so irrational over changes.
If I'm allowed to divorce the question of "Do we have fun while playing it"1 from the system itself, then sure, it's (largely) 'boring'.  With the exception of the Fighter (sort of2), everything feels just... lesser than 3e (and generally nothing like 4e).  It's D&D, being D&D as hard as it can, and all that does is... make us all realize that we play D&D just because we can't decide what else we should play, and D&D was all of our "firsts".

1Why would I want to do this?  Because our fun at-the-table has almost nothing to do with the system itself.  Next isn't getting in the way of our fun - so that's a plus, right?

2Once you notice how incredibly similar the Next's Fighter's situation is (and/or is becoming) to the 3e Fighter, the "New!  Different!  Exciting!" rapidly wears off.
Feedback Disclaimer
Yes, I am expressing my opinions (even complaints - le gasp!) about the current iteration of the play-test that we actually have in front of us. No, I'm not going to wait for you to tell me when it's okay to start expressing my concerns (unless you are WotC). (And no, my comments on this forum are not of the same tone or quality as my actual survey feedback.)
A Psion for Next (Playable Draft) A Barbarian for Next (Brainstorming Still)
I think i am being more entertainment out of the development of D&DNext than the system itself...is like watching a big building burning and crumbling into pieces...there is something just morbid about it...
I for one am enjoying a system develop here.  I'm just hoping it's fully developed by the time of its release.  Options for you, ya know?  At its current state, I think it's not bad.  There is TONS of room for improvement and I'm hoping they realize this. 

I've had fun with it.  There are some things from the current draft I love and some I hate.  The themes or whatever they call them now got really boring in the current version, I won't deny that.  Plus, I'm not quite satisfied with the rogue (This is a recurring complaint of mine)  But, as a DM and a player, I've enjoyed much of what I've seen so far.  It might be just me, but most of the complaints seem to come from fans of the current iteration.  Maybe that's just a perception, but this happens with every addition.  (I'd know, I used to be an edition bashing troll, but after a lot of maturing during college, I got over something so trival as edition warring.  Plus, even after 5e comes out, I'll still enjoy all the 4e stuff I have for a long time!)

Crazed undead horror posing as a noble and heroic forum poster!

 

 

Some good pointers for the fellow hobbyist!:

  • KEEP D&D ALIVE, END EDITION WARS!
  • RESPECT PEOPLES' PREFERENCES
  • JUST ENJOY THE GAME!